ATTYOPEN,CLOSED,JPS−CL,PROTO
United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin (Milwaukee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:17−cv−00234−JPS

Collins et al v. City of Milwaukee et al Assigned to: Judge J P Stadtmueller Referred to: Judge Lynn Adelman (Settlement) Cause: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Plaintiff
Charles Collins

Date Filed: 02/21/2017 Date Terminated: 07/23/2018 Jury Demand: Defendant Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Anthony Herman Covington & Burling LLP 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 202−662−6000 Fax: 202−778−5280 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe Covington & Burling LLP One City Center 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 202−662−5385 Fax: 202−778−5385 Email: esaxe@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc 125 Broad St − 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 212−284−7340 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: jwilliamson@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc 125 Broad St − 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 212−549−2690 Fax: 1−877−687−4878 Email: jcalvo−friedman@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen Covington & Burling LLP One City Center 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 202−662−5057 Fax: 202−778−5057 Email: jjensen@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty Covington & Burling LLP One City Center 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 202−662−5574 Email: jdougherty@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker American Civil Liberties Union of WI Foundation Inc 207 E Buffalo St − Ste 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−272−4032 Fax: 414−272−0182 Email: krotker@aclu−wi.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray University of North Carolina School of Law Van Hecke−Wettach Hall 160 Ridge Rd − CB 3380 Chapel Hill, NC 27599−3380 770−639−4312 TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis American Civil Liberties Union of WI Foundation Inc 207 E Buffalo St − Ste 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−272−4032 Fax: 414−272−0182 Email: ldupuis@aclu−wi.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle Covington & Burling LLP One City Center 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 202−662−6000 Fax: 202−662−6291 Email: sdingle@cov.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri American Civil Liberties Union of WI Foundation Inc 207 E Buffalo St − Ste 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−272−4032 Fax: 414−272−0182 Email: akadri@aclu−wi.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dallas Adams

Hwa Young Jin Covington & Burling LLP One City Center 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 202−662−5765 Fax: 202−778−5765 Email: hjin@cov.com TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin T Golart Covington & Burling LLP One City Center 850 10th St NW Washington, DC 20001 202−662−5053 Fax: 202−778−5053 Email: jgolart@cov.com TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury American Civil Liberties Union Foundation Inc 125 Broad St − 18th Fl New York, NY 10004 212−549−2500 Fax: 212−549−2654 Email: nchoudhury@aclu.org TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by Anthony Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker

Plaintiff Caleb Roberts

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hwa Young Jin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin T Golart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by Anthony Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty

Plaintiff Stephen Jansen

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hwa Young Jin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin T Golart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by Anthony Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen

Plaintiff Gregory Chambers

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hwa Young Jin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin T Golart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by Anthony Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman

Plaintiff Alicia Silvestre

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hwa Young Jin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin T Golart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by Anthony Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson

Plaintiff
Jerimiah Olivar TERMINATED: 04/23/2018

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hwa Young Jin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin T Golart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by Anthony Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe

Plaintiff David Crowley

(See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hwa Young Jin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin T Golart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by

Anthony Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hwa Young Jin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Justin T Golart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury

Plaintiff Jeremy Brown

(See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by Anthony Herman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Elizabeth Saxe (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jason D Williamson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jessica R Jensen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jon−Michael Dougherty (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Karyn L Rotker (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kerrel Murray (See above for address) TERMINATED: 05/22/2018 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Laurence J Dupuis (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Shanya J Dingle (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Asma I Kadri (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Hwa Young Jin (See above for address) TERMINATED: 11/09/2018 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant City of Milwaukee

Justin T Golart (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/09/2019
Nusrat J Choudhury (See above for address) TERMINATED: 12/19/2019
represented by David A Frank von Briesen & Roper, SC 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−276−1122 Fax: 414−238−6443 Email: dfrank@vonbriesen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jan A Smokowicz Milwaukee City Attorney's Office 200 E Wells St − Ste 800 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−286−2601 Fax: 414−286−8550 Email: jsmoko@milwaukee.gov TERMINATED: 04/20/2020
Joseph M Russell von Briesen & Roper, SC 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−276−1122 Fax: 414−276−6281 Email: jrussell@vonbriesen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
La Keisha W Butler Milwaukee City Attorney's Office 200 E Wells St − Ste 800 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−286−2603 Fax: 414−286−8550 Email: labutl@milwaukee.gov TERMINATED: 07/05/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Thome von Briesen & Roper, SC 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−287−1433 Fax: 414−238−6505 Email: mthome@vonbriesen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi E Gehling City of Milwaukee 200 E Wells St − Ste 800 Milwaukee, WI 53202−3653 414−286−2621 Fax: 414−286−8550 Email: ngehli@milwaukee.gov

Defendant Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission
Defendant Alfonso Morales

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall D Crocker von Briesen & Roper, SC 411 East Wisconsin Avenue, Suite 1000 Milwaukee, WI 53202 414−287−1238 Fax: 414−238−6532 Email: rcrocker@vonbriesen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A Frank (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jan A Smokowicz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2020
Joseph M Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
La Keisha W Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/05/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Thome (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi E Gehling (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall D Crocker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by David A Frank (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jan A Smokowicz (See above for address) TERMINATED: 04/20/2020
Joseph M Russell (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
La Keisha W Butler (See above for address) TERMINATED: 07/05/2017 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Matthew J Thome (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Naomi E Gehling

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Randall D Crocker (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 02/22/2017
02/22/2017
02/22/2017 02/22/2017 02/22/2017
02/22/2017 02/23/2017 03/10/2017 03/10/2017
03/13/2017
03/13/2017
03/14/2017 03/23/2017 03/27/2017 03/29/2017 03/29/2017 03/30/2017 03/31/2017

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants by Alicia Silvestre, Caleb Roberts, Tracy Adams, Charles Collins, Stephen Jansen, Gregory Chambers. ( Filing Fee PAID $400 receipt number 0757−2523407) (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons, # 3 Summons, # 4 Summons, # 5 Refusal to Proceed Before a Magistrate Judge, # 6 Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement)(Choudhury, Nusrat)
NOTICE Regarding assignment of this matter to Judge J P Stadtmueller ;Consent/refusal forms for Magistrate Judge Jones to be filed within 21 days;the consent/refusal form is available on our website ;pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1 a disclosure statement is to be filed upon the first filing of any paper and should be filed now if not already filed (jcl)
2 DISCLOSURE Statement by All Plaintiffs. (asc)
3 REFUSAL to Consent to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by All Plaintiffs. (asc)
NOTICE of Electronic Filing Error re 1 Complaint, filed by Tracy Adams, Alicia Silvestre, Gregory Chambers, Caleb Roberts, Charles Collins, Stephen Jansen ; Certain attachments to this document should have been filed as separate entries. This document does not need to be re−filed; Please refer to the policies and procedures for electronic case filing and the user manual found at www.wied.uscourts.gov (asc)
Summons Issued as to All Defendants. (asc)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by All Plaintiffs. Summons served on defendants on 2/22/2017 All Defendants. (Rotker, Karyn) Modified on 2/23/2017 (asc).
5 NOTICE of Appearance by Jan A Smokowicz on behalf of All Defendants. Attorney(s) appearing: Jan A. Smokowicz (Smokowicz, Jan)
6 STIPULATION by Plaintiffs and by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order Granting Extension of Time to Answer)(Smokowicz, Jan)
TEXT ONLY ORDER by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/13/2017 APPROVING 6 Parties' Stipulation for Extension of Time to Answer. Defendants shall answer or otherwise respond to the complaint by 3/29/2017. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
7 NOTICE of Hearing: Scheduling Conference set for 3/30/2017 at 9:00 AM in Courtroom 284, 517 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. Joint Rule 26 Discovery Plan due by 3/27/2017. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
8 NOTICE of Appearance by La Keisha W Butler on behalf of All Defendants. Attorney(s) appearing: La Keisha W. Butler (Butler, La Keisha)
9 NOTICE of Appearance by Joseph M Russell on behalf of All Defendants. Attorney(s) appearing: Joseph M. Russell (Russell, Joseph)
10 Joint REPORT of Rule 26(f) Plan by All Plaintiffs. (Williamson, Jason)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Randall D Crocker on behalf of All Defendants. Attorney(s) appearing: Randall D. Crocker (Crocker, Randall)
12 ANSWER to 1 Complaint, with Jury Demand by All Defendants.(Crocker, Randall)
13 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge J. P. Stadtmueller: Scheduling Conference held on 3/30/2017. (Court Reporter Heidi Trapp) (cb)
14 TRIAL SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 3/31/2017. Interim Settlement Report due by 9/25/2017; Dispositive Motions due by 10/2/2017;

05/05/2017
05/09/2017 05/09/2017
05/23/2017 05/24/2017
05/24/2017 06/07/2017 06/07/2017 06/14/2017
06/15/2017 06/30/2017 07/18/2017
07/21/2017
07/21/2017

Final Settlement Report due by 1/25/2018; Motions in Limine and all other Non−Dispositive Motions due by 2/2/2018; Single Joint Final Pretrial Report due by close of business on 2/8/2018. Final Pretrial Conference set for 2/13/2018 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 425, 517 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. Jury Trial set for 2/20/2018 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 425, 517 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. See Order. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
15 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION for Order regarding the Production of Documents and Electronic Data by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Order regarding the Production of Documents and Electronic Data))(Russell, Joseph)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by David A Frank on behalf of All Defendants. Attorney(s) appearing: David A. Frank II (Frank, David)
17 ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/9/2017 GRANTING 15 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Order Regarding Production of Documents and Electronic Data and SPECIFYING conditions governing the production of such items in this matter unless otherwise ordered by the Court. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix 1: Metadata and Coding Fields) (cc: all counsel) (jm)
18 Consent MOTION to File Amended Complaint by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Complaint Redlined to Show Proposed Amendments, # 2 Proposed Amended Complaint)(Choudhury, Nusrat)
TEXT ONLY ORDER by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/24/2017 GRANTING 18 Plaintiffs' Consent Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint. The Clerk of the Court shall separately docket Plaintiffs' amended complaint (Docket #18−2), which shall be the operative complaint in this action. (cc: all counsel) (jm)
19 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Alicia Silvestre, Caleb Roberts, Tracy Adams, Charles Collins, Stephen Jansen, Gregory Chambers, Jerimiah Olivar, David Crowley, Jeremy Brown.(asc)
20 ANSWER to 19 Amended Complaint by All Defendants.(Russell, Joseph)
21 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION for Protective Order (Joint Motion) by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Proposed Order), # 2 Exhibit Confidentiality Agreement (Exhibit A to Proposed Order))(Russell, Joseph)
22 PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 6/14/2017 GRANTING 21 Parties' Joint Motion for Protective Order and SPECIFYING the terms as modified for confidential information produced or disclosed during this matter. See Order for further details. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A to Protective Order) (cc: all counsel) (jm)
***Set/Clear Flags (asc)
23 NOTICE by All Defendants of Withdrawal of Counsel (Butler, La Keisha)
24 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Retention of In−Car Camera Recordings by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit of D. Wiorek, # 2 Affidavit of J. Russell (includes Exhibits A−D))(Russell, Joseph)
25 DISREGARD ENTRY − SEE DOCKET 26 BRIEF in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 24 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Retention of In−Car Camera Recordings . (Attachments: # 1 DECLARATION OF NUSRAT JAHAN CHOUDHURY, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit)(Murray, Walter) Modified on 7/21/2017 (mlm).
26 BRIEF in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 24 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Retention of In−Car Camera Recordings . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nusrat Jahan Choudhury, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H, # 10 Exhibit I)(Murray, Walter) Modified on 7/24/2017 (asc).

07/24/2017 07/24/2017
07/24/2017
07/25/2017
07/27/2017 07/28/2017
08/01/2017 08/02/2017 08/11/2017 08/11/2017 08/14/2017 08/17/2017 08/17/2017 08/18/2017

27 ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 7/24/2017 REFERRING 24 Defendants' Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION for Protective Order to Magistrate Judge David E. Jones for disposition. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
NOTICE of Electronic Filing Error re 26 Brief in Opposition to Motion, filed by Alicia Silvestre, Gregory Chambers, Jeremy Brown, Jerimiah Olivar, Tracy Adams, Charles Collins, Caleb Roberts, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen ; Attachments to documents should be clearly described. This document does not need to be re−filed.; Please refer to the policies and procedures for electronic case filing and the user manual found at www.wied.uscourts.gov (asc)
NOTICE of Hearing: Oral Argument Hearing on defendants' Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive Motion for Protective Order is set for 7/25/2017 02:45 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Court's conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 386 6147# to join the call. (cc: all counsel)(mlm)
28 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Oral Argument Hearing held on 7/25/2017 to discuss 24 Rule 7(h) Non−Dispositive Motion for Protective Order. Court directs parties to meet−n−confer regarding court's suggested solution and then contact courtroom deputy to set a status conference. (Tape #2:47:32−3:24:38) (kah) (Entered: 07/26/2017)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference set for 7/28/2017 09:00 AM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (cc: all counsel)(kah)
29 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/28/2017. Parties agree court's proposal to freeze only pre−litigation footage is reasonable and would resolve storage concerns. Court asks parties to draft a proposed order and to contact courtroom deputy if they wish for the Magistrate Judge to handle any future discovery matters. (Tape #9:00:29−9:12:43) (kah)
30 ORDER ON DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR ENTRY OF A PROTECTIVE ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge David E Jones on 08/01/2017. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Entry of Protective Order 24 is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. See order for further details. (cc: all counsel) (amb)
Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge David E Jones. (asc)
31 ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 8/11/2017 REFERRING matter to Magistrate Judge David E. Jones for resolution of all discovery−related matters. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
32 NOTICE of Appearance by Naomi E Gehling on behalf of All Defendants. Attorney(s) appearing: Naomi E. Gehling (Gehling, Naomi)
NOTICE of Hearing: Pre−Motion Conference set for 8/18/2017 03:00 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (cc: all counsel)(kah)
33 NOTICE of Appearance by Hwa Young Jin on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Attorney(s) appearing: Jon−Michael Dougherty (Jin, Hwa Young)
34 NOTICE of Appearance by Hwa Young Jin on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Attorney(s) appearing: Hwa Young Jin (Jin, Hwa Young)
35 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephone Pre−Motion Conference held on 8/18/2017. Parties discuss various discovery issues and will continue discussions on Tuesday 8/22/17. Status Conference set for 8/22/2017 03:00 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #3:00:55−3:56:12) (kah) (Entered: 08/21/2017)

08/22/2017
08/29/2017
09/01/2017
09/06/2017 09/07/2017 09/14/2017 09/14/2017 09/18/2017 09/20/2017 09/21/2017

36 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/22/2017. Parties continue discussions from the 8/18/17 pre−motion conference regarding discovery issues. Parties agree 30 additional search strings will be run against database and plaintiff to pay half of the cost. Court feels need to actively monitor status of document production. Status Conference set for 8/29/2017 10:30 AM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #3:01:20−3:31:33) (kah)
37 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 8/29/2017. Parties discussed three issues. Atty Dupuis is directed to provide board minutes to judge in camera, via email or hand delivered, by end of the day on 9/1/17. Court would like to discuss further the issue regarding Edith Hudson. Status Conference set for 9/1/2017 02:30 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #10:31:28−11:06:14) (kah)
38 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/1/2017. Parties continue discussions regarding topics previously discussed. David Crowley and ACLU to review work emails by 9/8/17. Status Conference to discuss draft order set for 9/6/2017 10:00 AM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. Status Conference set for 9/7/2017 02:30 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #2:31:12−3:36:33) (kah) (Entered: 09/05/2017)
39 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Status Conference held on 9/6/2017 to discuss draft order regarding privacy concerns. Defendant's do have a draft but it has not yet been approved by the City Attorney's Office. Deft raises issue regarding dash cam video request. Court ask parties to discuss further prior to tomorrow's status conference. (Tape #9:59:56−10:13:32) (kah)
40 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/7/2017. Status Conference set for 9/14/2017 03:00 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #2:30:29−3:39:34) (kah) (Entered: 09/08/2017)
41 ORDER TO PRODUCE ELECTRONICALLY STORED INFORMATION signed by Magistrate Judge David E Jones on 9/14/17. (cc: all counsel)(kah) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
42 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Status Conference held on 9/14/2017. Court has received and reviewed the parties proposed protective order and plans to file it today. Status Conference set for 9/19/2017 03:00 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #3:00:57−3:51:44) (kah) (Entered: 09/15/2017)
43 SUPPLEMENTAL PROTECTIVE ORDER REGARDING PRODUCTION OF MILWAUKEE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN−VEHICLE RECORDINGS & RMS DATA signed by Magistrate Judge David E Jones on 9/18/17. (Attachments: # 1 Confidentiality Agreement) (cc: all counsel)(kah)
NOTICE OF RESCHEDULED HEARING: Due to a conflict in the court's calendar, the Status Conference set for 9/19/2017 at 3:00 PM HAS BEEN RESCHEDULED TO 9/21/2017 02:00 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (cc: all counsel)(kah)
44 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/21/2017. Motion for Protective Order and brief to be filed no later than 9/22/17. ESI and privilege log production should be done no later than 9/28/17. Any production re police videos by 9/29/17. (Tape #1:59:56−2:55:31) (kah) (Entered: 09/22/2017)

09/22/2017 09/22/2017 09/25/2017 09/25/2017
09/26/2017
09/27/2017 09/27/2017
09/28/2017 10/03/2017
10/03/2017 10/04/2017 10/10/2017
10/12/2017 10/12/2017

45 LETTER from Jan A. Smokowicz presenting parties' joint request for mediation referral. (Smokowicz, Jan)
46 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding RMS Data with AFFIDAVITS by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Doug Wiorek, # 2 Affidavit Joseph Russell, # 3 Exhibit A, # 4 Exhibit B, # 5 Exhibit C, # 6 Text of Proposed Order)(Russell, Joseph) Modified on 9/25/2017 (asc).
47 ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 9/25/2017 re 45 Parties' Joint Request for Mediation Referral. Case REFERRED to District Judge Lynn Adelman to conduct one or more mediation conferences. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
48 JOINT INTERIM SETTLEMENT REPORT by Tracy Adams, Jeremy Brown, Gregory Chambers, Charles Collins, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen, Jerimiah Olivar, Caleb Roberts, Alicia Silvestre. This document and/or certain attachments are restricted to case participants and attorneys of record should use their efiling login and password to view this document(Williamson, Jason)
49 SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 9/26/17. Status Conference to discuss a date for mediation is set for 9/28/2017 at 10:45 AM by telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). Once that information is entered participants will be placed on hold until we access the call. (cc: all counsel)(gc)
50 MOTION to Seal Document by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dingle, Shanya)
51 RESPONSE to Motion filed by All Plaintiffs re 46 MOTION for Protective Order Regarding RMS Data . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of S. Dingle, # 2 Exhibit A, # 3 Exhibit B, # 4 Exhibit C, # 5 Exhibit D, # 6 Exhibit E, # 7 Exhibit F, # 8 Exhibit G, # 9 Exhibit H)This document and/or certain attachments are SEALED and only viewable by permission of the court(Dingle, Shanya)
52 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 9/28/2017. Mediation set for 10/3/2017 at 11:00 AM in Chambers Room 364, 517 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202 before Judge Lynn Adelman. (gc)
53 TEXT ONLY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge David E Jones on 10/3/17. For the reasons stated therein, and for good cause shown, Plaintiffs' Motion to File Exhibits Under Seal Pursuant to General L. R. 79(d), ECF No. 50 , is GRANTED. The following documents shall be SEALED until further order of the Court: Ex. D, ECF No. 51 −5; Ex. E, ECF No. 51 −6; Ex. F, ECF No. 51 −7; Ex. G, ECF No. 51 −8; and Ex. H, ECF No. 51 −9. (cc: all counsel) (jh) NOTE: There is no document attached to this text−only order.
54 ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge David E Jones on 10/3/17 DENYING 46 Motion for Protective Order. (cc: all counsel) (kah)
55 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Mediation held on 10/3/2017. Parties met and discussed issues. Mediation continued to 10/27/2017 at 11:00 AM in Room 364, 517 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202 before Judge Lynn Adelman. (gc)
56 SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 10/10/2017. Status Conference set for 10/12/2017 at 10:45 AM by telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). (cc: all counsel)(gc)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephonic Status Conference set for 10/12/2017 at 10:45 a.m has been rescheduled to 11:30 AM before Judge Lynn Adelman. (gc)
57 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 10/12/2017. Parties discussed schedule for mediation set for 10/27/17 at 11:00 a.m. Parties to notify the court if they want to start earlier than scheduled time. Court requests a representative from defendants' IT department be

10/27/2017 10/27/2017 11/01/2017 11/09/2017 11/13/2017 11/14/2017 11/17/2017 11/21/2017
11/27/2017 12/04/2017

present at the scheduled mediation or available by telephone. Court requests plaintiffs' draft settlement agreement on items presently agreed upon by parties. Plaintiffs' and Court request that FPC be present at the scheduled mediation. (gc)
58 SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 10/27/2017. Status Conference set for 11/1/2017 at 10:45 AM by telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). (cc: all counsel)(gc)
59 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Mediation held on 10/27/2017. Parties met and discussed issues, but did not reach a resolution. Plaintiffs provided the defendants with a proposed settlement agreement prior to mediation. Defendants will respond to the proposed settlement agreement. Parties will then decide whether to continue pursuing mediation. (gc) (Entered: 10/30/2017)
60 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/1/2017. Parties discussed the possibility of adjourning the 02/20/2018 trial date if JudgeStadtmueller determines that clear progress is made towards settlement of case. Defendants' response to Plaintiffs' proposed settlement agreement due by November 10, 2017. The court will schedule a telephonic status conference after the Defendants' response is received. (gc)
NOTICE of Hearing: Status Conference re: expert disclosure deadlines set for 11/13/2017 at 03:00 PM by telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Court's conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call.(cc: all counsel)(amb)
61 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/13/2017. Parties discuss expert disclosure deadlines and come to an agreement. Party who bears the burden of proof shall disclose their experts no later than 12/6/17. Defendant's rebuttal experts to be disclosed no later than 1/10/18. Court to enter a text only order. (Tape #3:02:08−3:15:46) (kah) (Entered: 11/14/2017)
62 TEXT ONLY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge David E Jones on 11/14/17. During a status conference held on 11/13/17, the parties indicated that they had reached an agreement on expert disclosure deadlines. This text−only order memorializes that agreement. Plaintiffs' expert disclosures are due on or before December 6, 2017; Defendants' expert disclosures are due on or before January 10, 2018. NOTE: There is no document attached to this text−only order. (cc: all counsel)(jh)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 11/21/2017 at 11:45 AM by telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). (gc)
63 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 11/21/2017. Plaintiffs received Defendants' response to proposed settlement agreement. Parties agree to file a joint request to extend the final pretrial report, final pretrial conference and jury trial for 90 days to permit parties to continue substantive negotiations and reach a settlement. Plaintiffs October 25th proposed settlement agreement redlined to include proposals from Defendants response due by 12/8/2017; Defendants redline response due by 12/22/2017; Plaintiffs redline response due by 1/12/2018. Status Conference set for 1/17/2018 at 11:00 AM by telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). (gc)
64 Joint MOTION to Adjourn Dates Memorialized in the Trial Scheduling Order by 90 Days by All Plaintiffs. (Choudhury, Nusrat)
65 ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 12/4/2017 GRANTING 64 Parties' Joint Motion for Extension of Time. 14 The Court's 3/31/2017 Trial Scheduling Order AMENDED as follows: Final Joint Settlement Report now due by 4/25/2018; all Motions in Limine and Non−Dispositive Pretrial Motions now due by 5/3/2018; Final/Joint Pretrial Report now due by 5/9/2018; Final Pretrial Conference re−set for

01/02/2018 01/17/2018 01/17/2018 01/25/2018 01/25/2018 01/25/2018
02/02/2018
02/14/2018 02/15/2018
02/15/2018
02/15/2018

5/14/2018 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 425, 517 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. Jury Trial re−set for 5/21/2018 at 8:30 AM in Courtroom 425, 517 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI before Judge J.P. Stadtmueller. All other provisions of the Trial Scheduling Order remain in effect. (cc: all counsel) (jm)
66 NOTICE of Appearance by Asma I Kadri on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Attorney(s) appearing: Asma Imtiazali Kadri (Kadri, Asma)
67 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 1/17/2018. Parties discussed case and status of settlement. Court ordered defendants to provide plaintiffs and the court with a detailed redline response to plaintiffs' proposed Settlement Agreement, Class Certification and Consent Decree by January 30, 2018. (gc)
68 ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS CONFERENCE signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 1/17/2018. Defendants shall provide plaintiffs and the court with a detailed redline response to plaintiffs' proposed Settlement Agreement, Class Certification and Consent Decree no later than January 30, 2018. Status Conference set for 2/2/2018 at 11:45 AM by telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. (cc: all counsel)(gc)
69 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by All Defendants. (Russell, Joseph)
70 BRIEF in Support filed by All Defendants re 69 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . (Russell, Joseph)
71 DECLARATION of Joseph M. Russell in support of Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R, # 19 Exhibit S, # 20 Exhibit T, # 21 Exhibit U, # 22 Exhibit W, # 23 Exhibit X)(Russell, Joseph)
72 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/2/2018. Parties provide the court with an update on the progress of settlement discussions. Defendants to provide the plaintiffs with a complete redline response (not color coded replies) including any recommended revisions and/or additions to the plaintiffs' proposed settlement agreement by February 16, 2018. Status Conference set for 2/20/2018 at 01:30 PM by telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). (gc) (Entered: 02/05/2018)
73 MOTION to Restrict Document Unredacted Memorandum of Law and Certain Exhibits Appended to Declaration of Shanya Dingle by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dougherty, Jon−Michael)
74 REDACTED BRIEF in Opposition filed by All Plaintiffs re 69 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . (Attachments: # 1 Unredacted Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss)This document and/or certain attachments are restricted to case participants and attorneys of record should use their efiling login and password to view this document(Dougherty, Jon−Michael) Modified on 2/15/2018 (bx).
75 DECLARATION of Shanya J. Dingle (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit Filed Under Seal, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit Filed Under Seal, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit Filed Under Seal, # 8 Exhibit Filed Under Seal, # 9 Exhibit Filed Under Seal, # 10 Exhibit Filed Under Seal, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit Filed Under Seal, # 13 Exhibit Filed Under Seal, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit)This document and/or certain attachments are restricted to case participants and attorneys of record should use their efiling login and password to view this document(Dougherty, Jon−Michael)
NOTICE of Electronic Filing Error re 73 MOTION to Restrict Document Unredacted Memorandum of Law and Certain Exhibits Appended to Declaration of Shanya Dingle filed by Alicia Silvestre, Gregory Chambers, Jeremy Brown, Jerimiah Olivar, Tracy

02/20/2018
02/22/2018 03/01/2018 03/01/2018 03/12/2018 03/22/2018 03/22/2018 03/22/2018 03/23/2018
03/23/2018
03/26/2018

Adams, Charles Collins, Caleb Roberts, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen, AND 75 Declaration;
Attachments/Exhibits to all documents should be clearly described, for example, Exhibit A, Exhibit B and Exhibit C etc...
In addition, all documents should contain the s/signature of the attorney who files the document. These documents do not need to be re−filed; Please refer to the policies and procedures for electronic case filing and the user manual found at www.wied.uscourts.gov (bx)
76 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 2/20/2018. Parties provide the court with an update on the progress of settlement discussions. Defendants provided the plaintiffs with a complete redline response to the plaintiffs' proposed settlement agreement. Plaintiffs' response to defendants' redline response due by March 2, 2018. Court will schedule mediation conference in a separate notice. (gc) (Entered: 02/22/2018)
NOTICE of Hearing: Mediation conference set for 3/8/2018 at 10:30 AM in Chambers Room 364, 517 E. Wisconsin Ave., Milwaukee, WI 53202 before Judge Lynn Adelman. Parties to notify the court if they want to start earlier than scheduled time. (cc: all counsel)(gc)
77 REPLY BRIEF in Support filed by All Defendants re 69 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction . (Russell, Joseph)
78 DECLARATION of Joseph M. Russell in support of Reply in support of Motion to Dismiss (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H)(Russell, Joseph)
79 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Mediation Conference held on 3/12/2018; Mediation conference to be continued at a later date (bx) (Entered: 03/13/2018)
NOTICE of Hearing: Pre−Motion Conference set for 3/23/2018 02:30 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (cc: all counsel)(kah)
80 SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 03/22/2018. Telephone Conference set for 3/23/2018 02:20 PM. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). (cc: all counsel)(lls)
81 LETTER from Plaintiffs re: new binding case law. (Dingle, Shanya)
82 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Pre−Motion Conference held on 3/23/2018. Court directs parties to meet and confer regarding discovery issues. Pre−Motion Conference set for 3/27/2018 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Court's conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #2:30:44 − 3:25:33) (amb) (Entered: 03/26/2018)
88 Minute Proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 3/23/2018: The parties discussed next and remaining steps toward settlement. The court scheduled a mediation conference for April 2, 2018, at 10:30 a.m. in room 392, and ORDERED that the following representatives of the Milwaukee Police Department appear in person: Information Systems Director Charles Burki; Inspector Terrence Gordon; and Captain Raymond Banks. The court FURTHER ORDERED that MaryNell Regan, Executive Director, Board of Fire and Police Commissioners, be available by phone, if needed. (bx) Modified on 3/28/2018 (bx). (Entered: 03/27/2018)
83 MOTION to Restrict Document Exhibit A to Declaration of Margo L. Frasier, J.D. in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by Tracy Adams, Jeremy Brown, Gregory Chambers, Charles Collins, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen, Caleb Roberts, Alicia Silvestre. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Choudhury, Nusrat)

03/26/2018 03/26/2018
03/26/2018 03/26/2018 03/27/2018 03/27/2018
03/29/2018 03/30/2018 03/30/2018 04/02/2018 04/02/2018
04/02/2018

84 MOTION to Certify Class by Tracy Adams, Jeremy Brown, Gregory Chambers, Charles Collins, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen, Caleb Roberts, Alicia Silvestre. (Choudhury, Nusrat)
85 BRIEF in Support filed by Tracy Adams, Jeremy Brown, Gregory Chambers, Charles Collins, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen, Caleb Roberts, Alicia Silvestre re 84 MOTION to Certify Class . (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Charles Collins, # 2 Declaration of Tracy Adams, # 3 Declaration of Dallas Adams, # 4 Declaration of Caleb Roberts, # 5 Declaration of Stephen Jansen, # 6 Declaration of Gregory Chambers, # 7 Declaration of Alicia Silvestre, # 8 Declaration of David Crowley, # 9 Declaration of Miguel Sanchez, # 10 Declaration of Nusrat J. Choudhury, # 11 Declaration of Shanya Dingle, # 12 Declaration of Karyn L. Rotker, # 13 Declaration of David Abrams, Ph.D., # 14 Declaration of Samuel Walker, Ph.D.)(Choudhury, Nusrat) Modified descriptions on 3/27/2018 (blr).
86 DECLARATION of Jason D. Williamson in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Dkt No. 84) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J, # 11 Exhibit K, # 12 Exhibit L, # 13 Exhibit M, # 14 Exhibit N, # 15 Exhibit O, # 16 Exhibit P, # 17 Exhibit Q, # 18 Exhibit R)(Choudhury, Nusrat)
87 DECLARATION of Margo L. Frasier in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification (Dkt No. 84) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Restricted Report of Margo L. Frasier, J.D.), # 2 Exhibit B (Redacted Report of Margo L. Frasier, J.D.))This document and/or certain attachments are restricted to case participants and attorneys of record should use their efiling login and password to view this document(Choudhury, Nusrat)
NOTICE of Electronic Filing Error re 85 Brief in Support of Motion,,, filed by Alicia Silvestre, Gregory Chambers, Jeremy Brown, Tracy Adams, Charles Collins, Caleb Roberts, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen ; The declarations in support should have been filed as separate entries. These documents do not need to be re−filed; Please refer to the policies and procedures for electronic case filing and the user manual found at www.wied.uscourts.gov (blr)
89 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Pre−Motion Conference held on 3/27/2018. Parties discuss issues regarding deposition topics, discovery deadline, supplemental expert reports, and privilege log. Court directs parties to meet and confer. Pre−Motion Conference set for 4/2/2018 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Court's conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #2:01:01 − 3:23:29) (amb) (Entered: 03/28/2018)
90 LETTER from Joseph M. Russell in response to Defendants' Letter (Dkt. No. 81) and ISO Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. No. 69). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit One)(Russell, Joseph)
91 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION to Substitute Party Dallas Adams for Tracy Adams, Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION to Dismiss Party Jerimiah Olivar by All Plaintiffs. (Rotker, Karyn)
92 DECLARATION of Karyn Rotker in Support of Motion to Substitute Dallas Adams for Tracy Adams and Motion to Dismiss Jerimiah Olivar (Rotker, Karyn)
93 NOTICE of Appearance by Nusrat J Choudhury on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Attorney(s) appearing: Jennesa Calvo−Friedman (Choudhury, Nusrat)
94 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Pre−Motion Conference held on 4/2/2018. Parties discussed privilege log issue, 5th request for production of documents, and Supplemental Expert Reports. Status Conference set for 4/10/2018 11:00 AM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #1:59:41−2:49:51) (kah) (Entered: 04/03/2018)
95 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Mediation Conference held on 4/2/2018; Settlement talks continued. The court set a telephone status conference for Thursday, April 5, 2018, at 12:00 p.m. Participants need to call in

04/05/2018 04/05/2018 04/09/2018 04/09/2018 04/10/2018 04/10/2018 04/10/2018 04/11/2018
04/12/2018 04/12/2018 04/13/2018 04/13/2018 04/18/2018

for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). (bx) (Entered: 04/04/2018)
96 BRIEF in Opposition filed by All Defendants re 91 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION to Substitute Party Dallas Adams for Tracy AdamsRule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION to Dismiss Party Jerimiah Olivar . (Frank, David)
97 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/5/2018; Parties making progress toward settlement. Parties to speak by phone on Monday, April 9 at 6:00 p.m., then call Judge Adelman at or around 7:30 pm. to discuss further progress. (bx) (Entered: 04/06/2018)
98 NOTICE of Appearance by Matthew J Thome on behalf of All Defendants. Attorney(s) appearing: Matthew J. Thome (Thome, Matthew)
102 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/09/2018; Parties discussed progress toward settlement agreement and outstanding issues. The court continued the conference to April 11, 2018. (bx) Modified on 4/13/2018 (vkb) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
NOTICE OF TIME CHANGE FOR HEARING: Due to a conflict in the Court's calendar, the Status Conference set for 4/10/2018 at 11:00 AM HAS BEEN MOVED TO 01:30 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (cc: all counsel)(kah)
99 SCHEDULING ORDER: signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 04/10/2018. IT IS ORDERED that a telephonic status conference will be held on April 11, 2018, at 10:45 a.m. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). (cc: all counsel)(lls)
100 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/10/2018. Plaintiff will submit supplemental report to Dr. Abrams and will serve on 4/20/18. Defendant requests extension of fact discovery to 4/30/18. Court GRANTS this request. Parties are directed to contact the court if need any further assistance. (Tape #1:56:15−2:19:30) (kah) (Entered: 04/11/2018)
101 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/11/2018; Parties discussed progress toward settlement agreement and outstanding issues. City expects to provide responses to plaintiffs' most recent proposals today. The court set a telephone status conference for April 12, 2018, at 11:30 a.m. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted (bx) (Entered: 04/12/2018)
103 STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Defendants to File Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by City of Milwaukee, Edward Flynn. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Frank, David)
104 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 4/12/2018; The parties continue to discuss major issues and work toward settlement. (bx) (Entered: 04/13/2018)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference set for 4/13/2018, at 01:15 PM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted (bx)
105 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/13/2018; Parties agreed in principle to a settlement, pending official approval. (bx)
106 STIPULATION to Substitute Dallas Adams and Dismiss Jerimiah Olivar by all Parties by All Plaintiffs. (Rotker, Karyn)

04/23/2018
04/26/2018 04/26/2018 04/26/2018 04/27/2018 04/27/2018 04/30/2018 05/02/2018 05/02/2018 05/09/2018 05/09/2018 05/14/2018 05/15/2018 05/17/2018 05/17/2018 05/22/2018

107 ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/23/2018 GRANTING 106 Parties' Stipulation to Substitute and to Dismiss. Dallas Adams SUBSTITUTED as a party plaintiff in place of Plaintiff Tracy Adams; Plaintiff Tracy Adams is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. Plaintiff Jerimiah Olivar and his individual claims DISMISSED from this action without prejudice. 91 Plaintiffs' Expedited Motion to Substitute and to Dismiss DENIED as moot. See Order. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
108 DISREGARD; filed in error STIPULATION For Extension of Time by All Defendants. (Frank, David) Modified on 4/26/2018 (bx).
109 STIPULATION For Extension of Time For Defendants to File Memorandum in Opposition To Plaintiffs' Motion by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Frank, David)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 4/27/2018 at 01:30 PM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 5/2/2018 at 10:45 AM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
110 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephone Status Conference held on 4/27/2018; Parties discussed settlement progress. New phone status conference scheduled for 5/2/2018 at 10:45 am.(bx)
TEXT ONLY ORDER by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 4/30/2018 ADOPTING 109 Parties' Stipulation for Extension of Time. Defendants shall RESPOND to 84 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by 5/14/2018. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 5/9/2018 at 11:30 AM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
111 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/2/2018; Parties discussed settlement progress. New phone status conference scheduled for 5/9/2018 11:30 a.m.(bx) (Entered: 05/03/2018)
112 ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 5/9/18. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
113 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/9/2018; Parties discussed settlement progress. Order docketed reflecting adjournment of jury trial and due dates. New phone status conference scheduled for 5/17 at 10:45 am.(bx) (Entered: 05/10/2018)
114 STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Defendants to File Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by City of Milwaukee, Edward Flynn. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Frank, David)
TEXT ONLY ORDER by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 5/15/2018 ADOPTING 114 Parties' Stipulation for Extension of Time. Defendants shall RESPOND to 84 Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification by 6/20/2018. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 5/24/18 at 11:30 AM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
115 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/17/2018; Parties discussed settlement progress. New phone status conference scheduled for 5/24 at 11:30 a.m. (bx) (Entered: 05/18/2018)
116 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Withdrawal of Walter Kerrel Murray as Counsel (Murray, Walter)

05/22/2018
05/24/2018 05/24/2018 05/25/2018 05/31/2018 05/31/2018 05/31/2018 06/06/2018 06/06/2018 06/07/2018 06/13/2018 06/15/2018 06/15/2018 06/18/2018 06/18/2018 06/19/2018

117 ORDER regarding 5/24/18 telephone status conference signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 5/22/18. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). Participants will be placed on hold until the court accesses the call. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 5/31/18 at 11:00 AM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
118 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephonic Status Conference held on 5/24/2018; Parties discussed settlement progress including possible contractors. New phone status conference scheduled for 5/31 at 11:00 am. (bx) (Entered: 05/25/2018)
119 ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 5/25/18. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 5/31/18 at 11:10 AM (jad)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 6/6/18 at 11:15 AM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
120 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman: Telephone Status Conference held on 5/31/2018; Parties discussed settlement progress including possible contractors. New phone status conference scheduled for 6/6 at 11:15 am. Similar representation should attend phone conference. (bx) (Entered: 06/01/2018)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 6/15/18 at 11:45 AM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
121 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman. The court convened for a Telephonic Status Conference on 6/6/2018. Parties discussed settlement progress including narrowing down contractors. New phone status conference scheduled for 6/15/18 at 11:45 a.m. (jad) (Entered: 06/07/2018)
122 ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 6/7/18. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
123 ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 6/13/18. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
124 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman. A Telephonic Status Conference was held on 6/15/2018. Parties discussed settlement progress including narrowing down contractors. New phone status conference scheduled for 6/22 at 1:00 p.m. (jad)
Telephone Conference to discuss status of case set for 6/22/18 at 1:00 PM before Judge Lynn Adelman. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
125 Rule 7(h) Expedited Non−Dispositive MOTION for Extension of Time by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit in Support of L. R. 7(h) Expedited Motion for Extension to Oppose Class−Certification Motion)(Russell, Joseph)
NOTICE of Hearing: Pre−Motion Conference set for 6/19/2018 12:00 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (cc: all counsel)(kah)
126 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Pre−Motion Conference held on 6/19/2018. Parties discuss due date for opposition to Motion for Class Certification and status of case if settlement does not happen. Court will stay any oppositions from Deft and will grant temporary relief. 125 Motion for Extension of Time is granted in part and denied in part. Telephonic Status Conference

06/21/2018 06/22/2018 06/25/2018 06/25/2018 07/05/2018 07/05/2018 07/09/2018 07/10/2018
07/12/2018
07/13/2018 07/17/2018

set for 6/25/2018 10:30 AM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call.(Tape #12:00:33−12:14:39) (kah) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
127 TEXT ONLY ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge David E Jones on 6/21/18. Defendants' Motion for Extension of Deadline to Respond to Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 125 , is granted in part and denied in part. Defendants need not file a response by June 20, 2018. The Court will set a new deadline at the June 25, 2018 status conference. NOTE: There is no document attached to this text−only order. (cc: all counsel) (jh)
128 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Lynn Adelman. The court convened for a Telephonic Status Conference on 6/22/18. Parties discussed open issues. Agreed to a face−to−face mediation on 6/27/18 at 10:45 a.m. (Parties invited to start earlier). Out of town participants will appear via conference call. Representatives from City Council and the mayor's office shall attend. Defendants will provide red−lined Settlement Agreement on 6/25/18. Trial date set for 9/10/18. (jad)
129 ORDER re Mediation Appearance signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 6/25/17. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
130 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 6/25/2018. Parties discuss how case will move forward in light of mediation and trial date set on 6/22/18. Court directs one deposition take place, instead of the three requested. Opposition to class certification due by 8/3/2018. Reply in support of class certification due by 8/9/2018 by noon. (Tape #10:30:39−10:49:49) (kah)
NOTICE of Hearing: Pre−Motion Conference re: discovery set for 7/6/2018 at 02:00 PM by telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Court's conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call.(cc: all counsel)(amb)
NOTICE of Cancellation of Hearing. Pursuant to the parties' request, The Telephonic Pre−Motion Conference set for 07/06/2018 at 2:00 PM has been canceled. (cc: all counsel) (amb)
NOTICE of Hearing: Pre−Motion Conference set for 7/10/2018 10:30 AM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (cc: all counsel)(kah)
131 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Pre−Motion Conference held on 7/10/2018. Parties discuss status of settlement and proposed discovery issues. Plaintiff thinks is essential to keep the case moving. Court to address the proposed issues on Thursday. Pre−Motion Conference set for 7/12/2018 02:00 PM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #10:32:32−10:43:18) (kah)
132 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Pre−Motion Conference held on 7/12/2018. Court believes settlement has been approved. Plaintiff agrees there is no need to address pending discovery issues at this point, but requests next week's depositions remain on the schedule. Court directs parties be excused from depositions and subpoenas. Status Conference set for 7/17/2018 10:00 AM By Telephone before Magistrate Judge David E Jones. The parties shall call the Courts conference line at 877−848−7030 and use access code 3866147# to join the call. (Tape #2:00:31−2:12:03) (kah) (Entered: 07/13/2018)
133 Joint MOTION for Settlement Agreement and Order by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Settlement Agreement and Order)(Dingle, Shanya) Modified on 7/16/2018 (asc).
134 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Magistrate Judge David E Jones: Telephonic Status Conference held on 7/17/2018. Court acknowledges case has settled and thanks the parties for their professionalism and great work throughout this case. (Tape #10:01:27−10:07:45) (kah)

07/23/2018
07/23/2018 09/20/2018 09/28/2018
10/03/2018 10/15/2018 10/18/2018 10/22/2018
11/09/2018 11/27/2018
01/25/2019
01/29/2019 01/29/2019 02/04/2019 02/06/2019 08/08/2019 09/23/2019 12/19/2019

135 ORDER and SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 7/23/2018. Given 133 the Parties' Joint Motion for Settlement Agreement and Order, together with the record as a whole, the Court: APPROVES the settlement, ADOPTS the parties' proposed order as incorporated herein, and RETAINS jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcing this Order. Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to administratively CLOSE this action. See Order for further details. (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A, # 2 Appendix B, # 3 Appendix C) (cc: all counsel) (jm)
Case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge David E Jones. (kah) (Entered: 10/02/2018)
136 LETTER addressed to Judge Adelman re Settlement Agreement from Paul Mozina. (asc) (Entered: 09/21/2018)
Set Hearing: Phone Conference with Judge Adelman to discuss the status of any remaining issues set for October 3, 2018 at 11:00 a.m. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (jad)
Set/Reset Hearings: Per request, the phone conference set for 10/3/18 at 11:00 a.m. has been cancelled. (jad)
137 STIPULATION Joint MOTION for Protective Order by All Plaintiffs. (Rotker, Karyn) Modified on 10/18/2018 (blr).
138 ORDER signed by Judge J.P. Stadtmueller on 10/18/2018 ADOPTING 137 Parties' Stipulation for Entry of Protective Order. See Order for further details. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
Set Hearing: Phone Conference with Judge Adelman to discuss status set for October 25, 2018 at 2:00 p.m. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: Dial access number 1−877−336−1839. Enter access code (4144803) and security code (1234) when prompted. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
139 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Withdrawal of Hwa Young Jin as Counsel (Jin, Hwa Young)
140 SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 11/27/18. IT IS ORDERED that a status conference will be held on 12/10/18 at 11:00 a.m. in Room 392 of the U.S. Courthouse, 517 East Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee, WI. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
141 SCHEDULING ORDER signed by Judge Lynn Adelman on 1/25/19. IT IS ORDERED that a telephonic conference with court reporter will be held on 1/30/19 at 11:30 a.m. to discuss issues raised in the plaintiff's 1/24/19 email and to answer the court's questions about these issues. Participants need to call in for the conference as follows: dial access number 1−877−336−1839. You will be prompted for an access code (4144803) and a security code (1234). Participants will be placed on hold until the court accesses the call. (cc: all counsel)(jad)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference reset for 2/1/19 at 1:30 PM in By Telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. (jad)
Set/Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference reset for 2/6/19 at 1:30 PM in By Telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. (jad)
Docket Annotation − Notice that Christine Cole shall participate in the phone conference scheduled for 2/6/19 at 1:30 p.m. (cc: all counsel, Cole) (jad)
Reset Hearings: Telephone Conference reset for 2/11/19 at 11:15 AM in By Telephone before Judge Lynn Adelman. (cc: all counsel, Cole) (jad)
142 NOTICE by All Plaintiffs of Withdrawal of Justin Golart as Counsel (Golart, Justin)
143 Report from Consultant . (Dupuis, Laurence)
144 NOTICE by Dallas Adams, Jeremy Brown, Gregory Chambers, Charles Collins, David Crowley, Stephen Jansen, Jerimiah Olivar, Caleb Roberts, Alicia Silvestre of Withdrawal (Choudhury, Nusrat)

02/25/2020 04/06/2020
04/10/2020
04/17/2020 04/19/2020 05/08/2020
05/14/2020
06/05/2020

145 Report from Consultant, filed by Plaintiffs' Counsel. (Choudhury, Nusrat)
146 STIPULATION For Disclosure of Police Camera Video Containing Personally −Identifiable Information to Consultant by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Smokowicz, Jan)
147 ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 4/10/2020 ADOPTING 146 Parties' Stipulation for Disclosure to Consultant. See Order for further details. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
148 Report from CJI (Consultant) First Six−Month Report on Non−Compliant Items. (Rotker, Karyn)
149 NOTICE by All Defendants of Withdrawal of Jan A. Smokowicz as Counsel for the Defendants (Smokowicz, Jan)
150 STIPULATION Regarding Inadvertently Disclosed Personally Identified Information by All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Attachment)(Gehling, Naomi)
151 ORDER signed by Judge J P Stadtmueller on 5/14/2020 ADOPTING 150 Parties' Stipulation Regarding Inadvertently Disclosed Information. See Order for further details. (cc: all counsel)(jm)
152 Report from Consultant, CJI Second Semi−Annual Analysis June 2020 IOARS Report. (Choudhury, Nusrat)

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION

CHARLES COLLINS; TRACY ADAMS, on behalf of her minor child, D.A.; CALEB ROBERTS; STEPHEN JANSEN; GREGORY CHAMBERS; and ALICIA SILVESTRE, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN; THE MILWAUKEE FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSION; and EDWARD FLYNN, in his official capacity as Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department,
Defendants.

No. --- cv ---
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Violation of Rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.)

INTRODUCTION 1. This civil rights action challenges the unconstitutional, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program of the Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD” or “Department”), which violates the rights of the named Plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated individuals under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
1
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 1 of 81 Document 1

United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (“Title VI”).
2. Since 2008, Defendant City of Milwaukee (“City” or “Milwaukee”), through the MPD, has engaged in an unlawful policy, practice, and custom of conducting a high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program. This program authorizes MPD officers to stop people without objective and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and to frisk people without reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, as required under the Fourth Amendment. Under this program, the MPD also conducts pervasive stops and frisks that are motivated by race and ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.
3. The MPD’s unconstitutional, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program was adopted as part of a so-called “broken windows” policing strategy purportedly devised to deter crime. The strategy includes blanketing certain geographic areas in which residents are predominantly people of color with “saturation patrols” by MPD officers, who conduct high-volume, suspicionless stops and frisks throughout the area. Over time, the MPD’s program has developed into a formal and informal quota system that requires patrol officers to meet numerical targets for stops on a regular basis.
2
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 2 of 81 Document 1

4. As a result, the combined number of MPD traffic and pedestrian stops skyrocketed from just 66,657 in 2007 to 196,434 in 2015—a staggering, nearly threefold increase.
5. Overwhelmingly, the victims of the MPD’s suspicionless stop-andfrisk program are Black and Latino people. Though implemented citywide, the MPD’s program has been largely concentrated in neighborhoods of color, including Milwaukee Police Districts Three, Five, and Seven, all of which are located in predominantly Black neighborhoods in the northern half of the City.
6. In addition, data reflect that Black and Latino people are more likely than white people to be stopped and frisked throughout Milwaukee, including in mixed-race and predominantly white neighborhoods. A 2011 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of MPD traffic stop data found that Black drivers citywide were seven times more likely—and that Hispanic drivers were five times more likely— to be targeted for a traffic stop than white drivers. Moreover, Black non-Hispanic people made up 72% of the targets of MPD stops conducted between 2010 and 2012 that were documented in an MPD database, even though they made up an estimated 34% of the City’s total population at the time, according to U.S. Census figures.
7. The MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has created and deepened public fear of and alienation from the MPD, particularly
3
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 3 of 81 Document 1

among Black and Latino residents. Black and Latino people throughout Milwaukee—including children—fear that they may be stopped, frisked, or otherwise treated like criminal suspects when doing nothing more than walking to a friend’s house or home from school, driving to and from the homes of loved ones, running errands, or simply taking a leisurely walk or drive through the City. No matter where they are in the City, Black and Latino people face the constant fear that they and their children may be subjected to police harassment even if they are doing nothing wrong.
8. Plaintiffs Charles Collins, Tracy Adams, on behalf of her minor child D.A., Caleb Roberts, Stephen Jansen, Gregory Chambers, and Alicia Silvestre are all victims of the MPD’s suspicionless stop-and-frisk program. Each Plaintiff was stopped at least once, if not multiple times, as a pedestrian or driver (or both) by an MPD officer, while engaged in routine, lawful activities, and under circumstances that did not give rise to objective and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Each was detained by an MPD officer and subjected to questioning. In addition, D.A. and Ms. Silvestre were frisked and/or searched under circumstances that did not give rise to objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that they were armed or dangerous. The Plaintiffs, each of whom is Black or Latino, also suffered the humiliation and indignity of being wrongfully branded as criminal suspects due to their race or ethnicity.
4
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 4 of 81 Document 1

9. The policies, practices, and customs that establish the MPD’s suspicionless stop-and-frisk program directly and proximately caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights. These policies, practices, and customs are implemented and enforced by Defendant Edward Flynn, who serves as Chief of the MPD, and have been ratified and endorsed by Defendant Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission (“FPC”), the civilian body charged with MPD oversight. Defendants Flynn and FPC are Defendant Milwaukee’s final policymakers with respect to the policies, practices, and customs that establish the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stopand-frisk program.
10. Defendants Milwaukee, Flynn, and FPC are aware, and/or should be aware, that the MPD’s suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has caused, and continues to cause, routine and suspicionless stops and frisks, in violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, as well as stops and frisks that are routinely based on race and ethnicity, in violation of rights clearly established under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI. Defendants nevertheless persist in implementing, enforcing, and sanctioning the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program.
11. Indeed, when questioned about racial disparities in MPD traffic stops, Defendant Flynn publicly acknowledged, “Yes, of course, we are going to stop lots of innocent people. The point is, do folks understand what their role is as a
5
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 5 of 81 Document 1

cooperative citizen in having a safe environment.” Ben Poston, “Racial Gap Found in Traffic Stops in Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 4, 2011.
12. Defendants Milwaukee, Flynn, and FPC have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, by: (a) failing to properly train MPD officers; (b) inadequately monitoring and supervising MPD officers’ practices related to pedestrian and traffic stops and frisks; (c) failing to properly discipline MPD officers who engage in unconstitutional conduct; and (d) encouraging, sanctioning, and failing to rectify the MPD’s unconstitutional practices, despite being fully on notice that such violations were occurring.
13. As a result, Plaintiffs, all of whom are Black or Latino and are current residents of or frequent travelers to Milwaukee, face a substantial threat that they will again be stopped or stopped and frisked by MPD officers in violation of their constitutional and civil rights. All Plaintiffs reside in, or frequently travel to, neighborhoods that are routinely targeted for large numbers of MPD suspicionless stops. D.A., who is 17 years old, has already been subjected to at least three unlawful MPD stops, the first of which took place when he was only 11 years old and included an illegal frisk. Mr. Chambers has been stopped at least three times without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, both as a pedestrian and a
6
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 6 of 81 Document 1

motorist. The Plaintiffs’ fear of future unconstitutional MPD stops and frisks is well founded.
14. By and through their attorneys, and on behalf of a Main Class and Subclass of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. to seek a declaration that the Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI, and an injunction requiring the Defendants to immediately and permanently suspend such policies, practices, and customs.
JURISDICTION & VENUE 15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3), as this action seeks redress for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and civil rights. 16. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 17. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because the Eastern District of Wisconsin is the judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, and in which the Defendants reside.
7
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 7 of 81 Document 1

PARTIES Plaintiffs 18. Plaintiff Charles Collins is a 67-year-old Black man, military veteran, and long-time Milwaukee resident. Mr. Collins previously worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant at the Milwaukee County Mental Health Complex and is currently retired. 19. Plaintiff Tracy Adams is a Black woman and long-time Milwaukee resident, who brings this lawsuit on behalf of her minor child, D.A., who is a 17year-old Black child and long-time Milwaukee resident. 20. Plaintiff Caleb Roberts is a 24-year-old Black man, born and raised in Milwaukee, who recently graduated from college and lived in Milwaukee until August 2016. He currently resides in Austin, Texas, where he is pursuing a graduate degree. Mr. Roberts returns to Milwaukee frequently throughout the year to visit family and friends. He plans to apply for postgraduate employment opportunities in Milwaukee. 21. Plaintiff Stephen Jansen is a 29-year-old Black man and Milwaukee resident, who recently graduated with a master’s degree in public administration from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He works for Goodwill as a Job Coach, assisting individuals in seeking and maintaining employment.
8
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 8 of 81 Document 1

22. Plaintiff Gregory Chambers is a 32-year-old Black man and Milwaukee resident. He was born and raised in Milwaukee.
23. Plaintiff Alicia Silvestre is a 60-year-old Latina woman and long-time Milwaukee resident. She has worked for the Milwaukee Public Schools (“MPS”) in various capacities for over 30 years, and currently serves as a high school secretary.
Defendants 24. Defendant City of Milwaukee is a municipality of the State of Wisconsin. The City has established and maintains the MPD as a municipal agency of the City under Wisconsin law. At all relevant times, the City, acting through the MPD, was responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all MPD matters and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all MPD personnel. In addition, at all relevant times, the City was responsible for ensuring that all MPD personnel obey the laws of the United States. The City receives a substantial amount of federal financial assistance for law enforcement activities. 25. Defendant Edward Flynn is the Chief of Police for the City of Milwaukee, and exercises supervisory authority over all MPD officers and operations. Defendant Flynn is the City’s final policymaker with respect to law enforcement activities and the promulgation of MPD standard operating
9
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 9 of 81 Document 1

procedures, rules, and guidelines, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute § 62.50 and Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 312.
26. Defendant Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission is a municipal agency of the City under Wisconsin law. Pursuant to Wisconsin Statute § 62.50 and Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 314, the FPC oversees all aspects of MPD operations and policies, identifies systemic problems with the MPD, disciplines employees for misconduct, and evaluates MPD policies, practices, and customs relating to stops, frisks, and searches of civilians. Defendant FPC is the City’s final policymaker with respect to law enforcement oversight, training, supervision, discipline, and monitoring.
27. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Flynn and/or Defendant FPC have served and continue to serve as Defendant Milwaukee’s final policymakers for the policies, practices, and customs challenged by Plaintiffs, and are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of those policies, practices, and customs.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Historical Background
28. Defendant Milwaukee has a long history of police encounters that have ended with death or injury to Black people, causing Black and Latino
10
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 10 of 81 Document 1

communities to fear the MPD. A number of these incidents have occurred since 2008.
29. Derek Williams, a Black man, died in 2011 while handcuffed in the back of an MPD vehicle after officers ignored his repeated requests for medical attention.
30. In 2012, a number of MPD officers were investigated and criminally charged for conducting illegal strip searches and body cavity searches, in public, primarily of young Black men from around 2008 to 2012.
31. In 2014, an MPD officer shot and killed Dontre Hamilton, an unarmed Black man, in Milwaukee’s Red Arrow Park, after initiating a pedestrian stop of Hamilton, who was asleep on a park bench and had already been contacted and cleared by other MPD officers in the area.
32. In August 2016, Sylville Smith, a young Black man, was shot and killed by an MPD officer as he fled on foot following a traffic stop.
33. Against this historical backdrop, since 2008, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has amplified Black and Latino people’s fear of, and feeling of alienation from, the MPD.
11
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 11 of 81 Document 1

B. Allegations of Named Plaintiffs Charles Collins 34. One evening in late spring 2014, Mr. Collins and his wife were
driving home on North 27th Street in Milwaukee following a visit to their son’s home. At around 6:30 pm, just as it was getting dark, Mr. Collins turned left from North 27th Street onto West Atkinson Street.
35. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Collins had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, an MPD patrol car pulled up behind Mr. Collins’ car, which was then on West Atkinson Street between North 28th and North 29th Streets.
36. One of the two uniformed MPD officers in the patrol car got out and approached Mr. Collins, who remained seated in the driver’s seat of his car.
37. The MPD officer asked Mr. Collins for his driver’s license, which Mr. Collins promptly provided.
38. Mr. Collins asked the officer why he had been stopped and whether there were any problems with the car.
39. The MPD officer responded, “We’re not the ticket police.” 40. When Mr. Collins opened his wallet to remove his driver’s license, the officer saw that Mr. Collins also carried a concealed weapon permit. The MPD
12
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 12 of 81 Document 1

officer asked Mr. Collins if he had a gun in the car; Mr. Collins responded that he did not.
41. The MPD officer took Mr. Collins’ driver’s license back to the patrol car, presumably to conduct a warrant search. After the officer returned, he permitted Mr. Collins and his wife to leave the scene without charging or citing them for any violation.
Tracy Adams, on behalf of D.A. 42. D.A. is a Black male teenager who has been stopped without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct on at least three occasions by MPD officers over the last several years.
2010 43. One stop took place in or around October 2010, when D.A. was a fifth-grade student at the Milwaukee German Immersion School, which is located in Milwaukee near North 82nd Street and West Capital Drive. 44. At around noon on that day, D.A. walked several blocks from his home to the home of his friend, J.H., which was located near the school. D.A. was wearing headphones while walking. When D.A. reached J.H.’s house, he stepped onto the porch and rang the doorbell. When J.H. did not immediately come to the door, D.A. called him using the cell phone his mom had given him to use in case of emergency.
13
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 13 of 81 Document 1

45. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that D.A. had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, an MPD officer driving a patrol car pulled into the alley next to J.H.’s house.
46. The MPD officer stepped out of the patrol car and told D.A. to “come here.” The officer walked towards D.A., put his arm around D.A.’s shoulders, and escorted D.A. from the porch to the patrol car. The officer immediately began questioning D.A. in an accusatory manner and forcibly removed D.A.’s phone from his hand.
47. The officer asked D.A. what he was doing at that location. D.A. explained that he was visiting a friend.
48. The officer patted D.A. down from his chest to his legs, and patted down each arm individually. The officer instructed D.A. to put his hands on the hood of the patrol car and D.A. complied.
49. J.H.’s father, who is white, came out of the house shortly thereafter, and asked the officer what was going on and why D.A. was being searched when “he’s a little kid.” He explained to the officer that D.A. and his son, J.H., were going to hang out in J.H.’s room.
50. The MPD officer told J.H.’s father that he was making sure that nothing was wrong. The MPD officer asserted that he was trying to be cautious.
14
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 14 of 81 Document 1

51. The MPD officer then left without charging or citing D.A. for any violation.
52. When D.A.’s mother, Tracy Adams, learned about this incident, she was upset and frustrated. Ms. Adams called the MPD’s District Seven station and spoke to a sergeant.
53. Ms. Adams asked why her son—who was just a child—had been stopped and frisked by the police for no reason. The sergeant explained that MPD officers have “a policy to stop young men walking through alleys.”
54. Ms. Adams was disturbed by the sergeant’s response. She had worked for Milwaukee Public Schools for more than 25 years and had never heard of such a policy or practice, particularly as it relates to children. Ms. Adams told the officer that the policy described did not sound right to her and that she would like to file a complaint.
55. The officer informed Ms. Adams that she had a right to file a complaint, and explained that Ms. Adams had to come to the police station in District Seven to pick up and complete the relevant forms, so that the MPD could look into the complaint and forward it to the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission to determine if “there was something.”
15
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 15 of 81 Document 1

56. Ms. Adams took the initial steps to file a formal complaint, but ultimately decided not to do so, based upon the lack of cooperation and guidance from MPD officials that she had already encountered by phone and in person.
57. Upon information and belief, the officer who conducted the unlawful stop was never disciplined, reprimanded, or otherwise held accountable for his actions.
2013 58. D.A. was again stopped and searched by MPD officers in 2013, when he was a seventh-grade student at the Milwaukee School of Languages, located on West Burleigh Street in Milwaukee. 59. Following school that day, D.A. and three classmates stopped briefly at the home of one of the boys, B.C., which was located a few blocks from the school. While waiting on the porch of B.C.’s home, D.A. noticed a marked MPD vehicle make a U-turn and park on the curb facing B.C.’s house. 60. Shortly after leaving B.C.’s house, D.A. and his classmate, E.W., walked towards D.A.’s house, taking a shortcut through a nearby alley. 61. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that D.A. had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, an MPD patrol car pulled up next to D.A. and E.W. Upon coming to a stop, two officers got out of the car and approached D.A. and E.W.
16
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 16 of 81 Document 1

62. The officers asked D.A. and E.W. to remove their hands from their coat pockets because they “might have weapons.”
63. The officers asked D.A. and E.W. what they were doing. D.A. explained that they were walking to his house.
64. One officer asked D.A. and E.W. for identification. The boys gave their names, which one of the officers wrote down, but they were too young to have identification cards.
65. One officer returned to the MPD patrol car, presumably to check the boys’ names for arrest warrants. The other officer instructed D.A. and E.W. to sit on the hood of the patrol car.
66. At one point, D.A. and E.W. asked if they could leave, but one of the MPD officers told them to wait so that the officers could verify their identity.
67. The officer who conducted the identification check returned to where D.A. and E.W. were waiting. He asked D.A. what was in his backpack. D.A. explained that his backpack contained homework.
68. One officer warned the boys not to walk through alleys because it “makes you look suspicious.”
69. The officers then drove away without charging or citing D.A. or E.W. with any violation.
17
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 17 of 81 Document 1

70. After the officers let them go, D.A. and E.W. continued walking to D.A.’s house.
71. B.C. later called D.A. to tell him that a police officer had come to his house to ask him if he knew D.A. and E.W.
2016 72. D.A. was also stopped by an MPD officer during September or October 2016, when he was walking alone on his way to the bus stop early in the morning to attend high school. 73. At approximately 9 a.m., D.A. was walking along West Nash Street in Milwaukee. He then crossed onto the east side of North 96th Street, next to the schoolyard fence of the Ninety-Fifth Street School. Almost immediately, an MPD officer on a motorcycle drove up West Nash Street and pulled up next to him. 74. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that D.A. had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, the MPD officer stopped D.A. and asked whether he lived in the area. The officer mentioned a report of a stolen car. D.A. responded that he did not know anything about a stolen car. D.A. did not believe that he was free to end the encounter and leave the scene.
18
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 18 of 81 Document 1

75. After a few more minutes of questioning, the officer rode away without charging or citing D.A. for any violation, and D.A. continued on his way to the bus stop.
Caleb Roberts 76. On July 5, 2011, Mr. Roberts, who was then an 18-year-old college student, left a Summerfest concert in Milwaukee with friends and relatives by car sometime between 11:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. Mr. Roberts was driving a black minivan, with slightly tinted back side windows, and was accompanied by five passengers. 77. After dropping one friend off at North 71st Street and West Center Street, Mr. Roberts drove to North 60th Street and West Hampton Avenue to drop off his cousin, J.B. 78. Driving on North 60th Street, Mr. Roberts turned left at a stoplight onto West Hampton Avenue, less than a block from J.B.’s home, and saw two MPD patrol cars driving in the opposite direction. 79. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Roberts or any of the minivan passengers had engaged in, or were about to engage in, criminal conduct, the two MPD patrol cars made a U-turn, activated their emergency lights, and directed Mr. Roberts to pull over just as he approached the front of J.B.’s house.
19
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 19 of 81 Document 1

80. Four uniformed officers emerged from the MPD patrol cars, two from each vehicle, and descended upon the minivan. Two officers approached each side of Mr. Roberts’ minivan, raised their flashlights, and drew their guns.
81. Mr. Roberts had already lowered the window of the driver’s side door before the officers approached. Upon reaching the minivan, one of the officers opened the driver’s side door, while the other officers directed the passengers to open the remaining three doors of the minivan.
82. The MPD officer positioned at the driver’s side door told Mr. Roberts to put his hands on the steering wheel and to show his driver’s license. Mr. Roberts complied. The officers also obtained identification cards from the other three male passengers (but not from the sole female passenger).
83. The officers asked Mr. Roberts and the passengers about where they were coming from and whether there were weapons or alcohol in the vehicle. Mr. Roberts explained that they were on their way home from the Summerfest concert and that there were no weapons or alcohol in the minivan.
84. At least one officer returned to the patrol car, presumably to run the minivan’s license plate number and the identification cards obtained for warrants.
85. One MPD officer, who remained at the minivan, directed J.B. to get out of the minivan. Once J.B. exited the minivan, he was frisked, handcuffed, and
20
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 20 of 81 Document 1

made to sit on the curb on West Hampton Avenue, directly in front of his own home.
86. Mr. Roberts, J.B., and another passenger, D.L., each asked one of the MPD officers to provide the reason for the traffic stop. One officer told Mr. Roberts that the vehicle’s registration was faulty. A second officer told J.B. that J.B. had appeared to be reaching for something on the floor or under the seat. A third officer told D.L. that J.B., who had been seated in the middle seat of the last row in the minivan, had not been wearing a seatbelt before they were pulled over, even though the back seat of the minivan is not visible from the outside because of the tinted side rear windows.
87. After conducting the warrant check, the MPD officers returned the identification cards to Mr. Roberts and the other passengers, and permitted them to leave without being charged or cited for any violations.
Stephen Jansen 88. At around 12:30 a.m. on May 14, 2016, Mr. Jansen left the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee campus, where he was a graduate student obtaining a master’s degree in public administration, to return home after studying for a final exam. Mr. Jansen walked west on East Locust Street, then south on North Humboldt Boulevard, keeping to the sidewalk on the east side of the street.
21
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 21 of 81 Document 1

89. When Mr. Jansen approached the corner of North Humboldt Street and East Center Street, two MPD officers on bicycles rode swiftly past Mr. Jansen going in the same direction.
90. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Jansen had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, the MPD officers looked at Mr. Jansen, turned around and rode back in his direction. They stopped at the northeast corner of the intersection of North Humboldt Street and East Clarke Street, where they began circling their bicycles and talking to each other. Mr. Jansen continued to walk south on North Humboldt Boulevard, towards the officers.
91. As Mr. Jansen started to cross East Clarke Street, one of the MPD officers, whom Mr. Jansen later learned was named Officer Macrae, rode towards him.
92. Officer Macrae appeared to call out to him, but Mr. Jansen could not hear the officer well because he was wearing earbuds and listening to music.
93. Mr. Jansen stopped and removed his earbuds. Officer Macrae stated, “We didn’t smell any marijuana until we passed you. Do you have any weed on you?”
94. Mr. Jansen did not believe that he could continue walking without responding to Officer Macrae. He responded that he did not have any marijuana.
22
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 22 of 81 Document 1

95. Officer Macrae then asked if Mr. Jansen if he had anything in his backpack or anything “on him.”
96. Mr. Jansen again felt that he could not leave the scene without answering the question. He responded, “No. I don’t smoke marijuana. Anything else?” Officer Macrae smirked and replied, “No.”
97. The officers then left the scene without charging or citing Mr. Jansen for any violation, and he continued to walk home.
98. Mr. Jansen was upset following his interaction with the MPD officers and felt that he had been wrongfully targeted because of his race.
99. Mr. Jansen told his girlfriend about the encounter, and called MPD’s District Five station to complain. He spoke to an officer, and was then transferred to an MPD Supervisor who introduced himself as “Jake.”
100. Mr. Jansen complained that two MPD officers had stopped and questioned him without articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. During this conversation, Mr. Jansen learned that Officer Macrae was one of the two officers involved in the stop.
101. Upon information and belief, the May 14, 2016 stop was not investigated by MPD, Defendant FPC, or any other oversight authority.
23
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 23 of 81 Document 1

Gregory Chambers 102. Mr. Chambers is a young Black man who has been stopped without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct by MPD officers on at least three occasions.
2014 103. At approximately 6:00 a.m., in or around January or February 2014, Mr. Chambers was driving home after dropping his wife off at work. Before reaching home, Mr. Chambers decided to refuel at a gas station located at Miller Park Way and Greenfield Avenue in Milwaukee. 104. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Chambers had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, an MPD patrol car tailed Mr. Chambers down Miller Park Way and followed him as he made a legal U-turn and pulled into the gas station. When Mr. Chambers pulled up to the first gas pump, the patrol car pulled up directly behind Mr. Chambers’ car. As Mr. Chambers got out of his car, the patrol car’s siren was activated. Mr. Chambers stopped abruptly and stood by the gas pump. 105. One officer commented on Mr. Chambers’ “nice car” and asked whether it belonged to him. Mr. Chambers responded that it was his wife’s car and that he had just dropped her off at work.
24
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 24 of 81 Document 1

106. The two MPD officers got out of the patrol car and approached Mr. Chambers. The officer who had commented on Mr. Chambers’ car asked to see his driver’s license, which Mr. Chambers provided.
107. The officer took Mr. Chambers’ license back to the patrol car and got inside, where he presumably checked for warrants. The second officer stood by the hood of the patrol car and stared directly at Mr. Chambers for approximately ten minutes without uttering a word.
108. When nothing problematic was found, the officers returned Mr. Chambers’ driver’s license. The officers again asked Mr. Chambers whether the car belonged to him. Mr. Chambers stated that if he was not being detained, he would like to go.
109. The officers permitted Mr. Chambers to leave the scene without charging or citing him for any violation.
2015 110. In August 2015, Mr. Chambers was driving to his home in Milwaukee in a beige 2011 Chevy Malibu, which he had purchased about a week earlier. At the time, the car was still equipped with temporary dealer plates, while Mr. Chambers waited for the permanent license plates to arrive in the mail. 111. Mr. Chambers was driving down South 27th Street and turned onto West Mitchell Street. As Mr. Chambers drove east and reached South 13th Street,
25
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 25 of 81 Document 1

near West Forest Home Avenue, he noticed that an MPD patrol car was following him.
112. Several minutes later, as Mr. Chambers pulled up in front of his apartment building at West Mitchell Street and South 6th Street, the officers activated their car siren.
113. Two MPD officers approached Mr. Chambers’ car, one on each side of the vehicle.
114. The MPD officer on the driver’s side told Mr. Chambers that the dealer tag on the car did not match the car registration that they had on file. He asked to take down Mr. Chambers’ vehicle identification number, which Mr. Chambers permitted. The officer also asked Mr. Chambers for his driver’s license, which Mr. Chambers provided, and returned to the patrol car, presumably to conduct a check for any outstanding warrants.
115. Meanwhile, the MPD officer on the passenger side peered into Mr. Chambers’ car and stared at him, while keeping his hand on his gun. The gun was in its holster, but the holster was unsnapped. Eventually, the officer snapped the strap closed, securing the gun in the holster.
116. After several minutes, the other officer returned to Mr. Chambers’ car. Following another series of questions, the officers eventually told Mr. Chambers that he was free to go.
26
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 26 of 81 Document 1

117. The officers watched Mr. Chambers get out of his car and enter his apartment building before leaving the scene. They did not charge or cite him with any violation.
2016 118. On a Sunday evening in March 2016, after driving into downtown Milwaukee, Mr. Chambers parked his car and went for a walk on North Water Street. 119. At approximately 9:00 p.m., as Mr. Chambers was returning to his car, an MPD patrol car activated its emergency lights and pulled up at the curb alongside him. Mr. Chambers had been walking on the sidewalk on the west side of the street, next to a large fountain near the entrance to the Marcus Center for the Performing Arts. 120. Two MPD officers got out of the car and approached Mr. Chambers. They asked what he was doing. Mr. Chambers responded that he was taking a walk. The officers asked Mr. Chambers for his identification, which he provided. 121. The officers then asked Mr. Chambers for his age. When Mr. Chambers stated that he was 31 years old, the officers replied that they did not believe him. 122. One officer took Mr. Chambers’ driver’s license to the patrol car, while the second officer stayed with Mr. Chambers. When nothing problematic
27
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 27 of 81 Document 1

was found, the first officer returned Mr. Chambers’ driver’s license and permitted Mr. Chambers to leave the scene without charging or citing him for any violation.
Alicia Silvestre 123. One evening in or around 2015, Ms. Silvestre dropped off some food for her son, who lived on South Aldrich Street in Milwaukee at the time. She left her son’s home by car at around 10 p.m. Her then four-year-old granddaughter was in the back seat. 124. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Ms. Silvestre had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, MPD officers in a patrol car activated the car’s emergency lights and pulled up behind Ms. Silvestre’s car just after she turned left from East Homer Street onto South Kinnickinnic Avenue. 125. Two MPD officers approached Ms. Silvestre’s car on either side. The officer on the driver’s side asked Ms. Silvestre for her driver’s license. Ms. Silvestre responded that she had accidentally left it at home in her purse. 126. The officer then aggressively questioned Ms. Silvestre in a threatening manner, which made Ms. Silvestre extremely nervous. He asked Ms. Silvestre how old she was, and expressed disbelief when Ms. Silvestre fumbled her response before providing the correct answer.
28
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 28 of 81 Document 1

127. The officer asked Ms. Silvestre why she was nervous. Ms. Silvestre explained that he was making her feel nervous.
128. The officer then asked if he would find “anything” if he searched Ms. Silvestre’s car. Ms. Silvestre responded that the officer would not find anything. The officer then ordered Ms. Silvestre out of the car, so that they could search her person. She stood up and said “Search me,” but the officer did not do so. Instead, he leaned into the car, over the driver’s seat, and shined a flashlight into the interior.
129. Ms. Silvestre’s granddaughter remained in the back seat, crying. 130. The officer instructed Ms. Silvestre to get back into her car, and informed her that they were going to follow her home to confirm that she had a valid driver’s license. The officer told Ms. Silvestre that after arriving at her home, she should wait for permission to get out of her car and should “not run.” 131. Ms. Silvestre drove home with the MPD officers following behind her in the patrol car. 132. When Ms. Silvestre arrived at home, she waited in her car as instructed. An officer opened the driver’s side door and let Ms. Silvestre out of the car. Ms. Silvestre opened the rear passenger door to let her granddaughter out of the back seat of the car.
29
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 29 of 81 Document 1

133. As they walked towards the house, the MPD officer asked Ms. Silvestre where her driver’s license was located inside of the house. Ms. Silvestre explained that she had left her purse on the dining room table and that she kept her driver’s license in an outside pocket of the purse.
134. Once at Ms. Silvestre’s front door, the two MPD officers followed Ms. Silvestre into the house without asking her permission. As Ms. Silvestre walked towards the dining table to get her purse, the same MPD officer told her to stop, grabbed the purse himself, unzipped the main compartment, and dumped the contents of the bag onto the dining table without asking permission.
135. Ms. Silvestre was frightened by this intrusive behavior. She began crying. Her granddaughter, whom Ms. Silvestre had sent to an adjacent room, continued to cry as well. Ms. Silvestre asked the officer why he was treating her this way.
136. The MPD officer asked Ms. Silvestre if she knew that she had been in an area known for drugs and produced a small piece of foil with burn marks, which he claimed to have found in her car, and which Ms. Silvestre had never seen before. The officer said it was heroin and the reason why he had been treating her aggressively.
137. Ms. Silvestre responded that she did not know anything about heroin.
30
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 30 of 81 Document 1

138. Both MPD officers left without charging or citing Ms. Silvestre for any violation. Neither officer explained why she had been stopped and searched in the first instance.
139. The next day, Ms. Silvestre called MPD’s District Six station to file a complaint. An officer told her that she had been stopped because she had failed to stop at a traffic light. There is no traffic light, however, at the intersection on South Kinnickinnic Avenue where the MPD officers initially stopped Ms. Silvestre.
140. Ms. Silvestre also filled out a written Citizen Complaint Form soon after the incident and submitted it to the FPC. Upon information and belief, the officers who conducted the unlawful stop, car search, and home entry were never disciplined, reprimanded, or otherwise held accountable for their actions.
C. The MPD’s High-Volume, Suspicionless Stop-and-Frisk Program 141. The named Plaintiffs’ experiences of being stopped, frisked, and
searched by MPD officers without legal justification are far from isolated incidents. They are the result of the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-andfrisk program, which violates both the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures and the prohibition against racial and ethnic profiling under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
142. Upon assuming control of the MPD in 2008, Defendant Flynn ushered in a “broken windows policing” strategy involving “proactive policing” and so-
31
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 31 of 81 Document 1

called “saturation patrols.” As part of this strategy, Defendant Flynn directs MPD officers to increase the number of traffic and pedestrian stops, also known as “field interviews” and “field contacts,” throughout the City, and particularly in neighborhoods that are economically depressed and/or perceived as suffering from social disorder. Defendant Flynn has publicly suggested that saturating these neighborhoods with police and ramping up the number of stops made by MPD officers will disrupt and deter crime, whether or not the stops lead to arrest or prosecution.
143. Defendant Flynn has acknowledged that a significant number of the stops conducted by MPD officers are of law-abiding individuals. When questioned about this phenomenon, Defendant Flynn stated, “Yes, of course we are going to stop lots of innocent people.” Ben Poston, “Racial Gap Found in Traffic Stops in Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 4, 2011.
144. The result is the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program, which is predicated on a policy, practice, and custom of authorizing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to conduct large numbers of traffic and pedestrian stops that are unsupported by objective and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
145. The MPD’s suspicionless stop-and-frisk program also includes a policy, practice, and custom of authorizing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to
32
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 32 of 81 Document 1

escalate stops to include frisks that are unsupported by reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous.
1. Citywide Impact of the MPD’s Suspicionless Stop-and-Frisk Program
146. The MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has led to a dramatic increase in MPD traffic and pedestrian stops citywide. The combined number of MPD traffic and pedestrian stops multiplied nearly threefold from just 66,657 in 2007 to 196,434 in 2015.
147. The fact that MPD conducted 196,434 traffic and pedestrian stops in 2015 alone is, in and of itself, staggering in light of the City’s 2015 population of 599,498, according to U.S. Census figures.
148. According to the MPD’s 2015 Annual Report, MPD officers conducted 149,604 traffic stops and 46,830 subject (pedestrian) stops in 2015, compared to 52,399 traffic stops and 14,258 subject stops in 2007. These figures may even underrepresent the extent to which the City’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has increased police stops in Milwaukee because MPD officers fail to document every traffic and pedestrian stop conducted.
149. Even though the combined number of pedestrian and traffic stops has decreased slightly in recent years, that number has remained consistently high since 2009, based on data presented in the MPD’s 2015 Annual Report.
33
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 33 of 81 Document 1

150. Upon information and belief, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program continues to serve as the driving force behind the large numbers of traffic and pedestrian stops citywide.
151. In 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin expressed concern that MPD officers routinely conduct suspicionless stops in the context of a lawsuit resulting in a jury verdict finding that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and frisk. The Court order upheld the jury verdict and observed: “[I]t is apparent that MPD has opted to continue the sort of illegal stops that Mr. Hardy was subject to. MPD Chief Edward Flynn has made clear that one of his prerogatives is encouraging large amounts of pedestrian stops, regardless of the reasons. In criticizing Floyd v. City of New York, the Southern District of New York case finding the New York Police Department’s stop-andfrisk tactics illegal, Chief Flynn stated, ‘That’s what worries us about what’s happening in New York. It would be a shame if some people decided to put us back in our cars just answering calls and ceding the streets to thugs.’” Order, Hardy v. City of Milwaukee, 88 F. Supp.3d 852, 881 at n.19 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 27, 2015) (citing Heather MacDonald, “How to Increase the Crime Rate Nationwide,” The Wall Street Journal (Jun. 11, 2013)) (“Hardy order”). The Court noted that “even the most routine police stop has the possibility of escalating quickly” and that “police stops of citizens should not be taken lightly.” Id. at 881.
34
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 34 of 81 Document 1

2. The MPD’s Suspicionless Stop-and-Frisk Program Targets Black and Latino People
152. The MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program is also predicated on a policy, practice, and custom of authorizing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to base stops and frisks on race and ethnicity, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
153. In 2011, a report by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (“MJS Report”) analyzed data provided by the MPD to the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance on MPD traffic stops conducted from January 2011 to April 2011. The MJS Report found that Black drivers throughout Milwaukee were seven times more likely to be stopped by MPD officers than white drivers, and that Hispanic drivers were five times more likely to be stopped than white drivers. See Ben Poston, “Racial Gaps Found in Traffic Stops in Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 4, 2011.
154. The MJS Report also found that Black drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to have their cars searched after the initiation of a stop, even though the rate at which searches resulted in the seizure of contraband was comparable for Black and white drivers.
155. When questioned about the MJS Report findings, Defendant Flynn publicly stated that such racial disparities are to be expected. Defendant Flynn told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “If we are going to heavily engage with those communities that are both victimized and from whence a significant majority of
35
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 35 of 81 Document 1

our offenders come, we are going to generate disparities because of where we’re physically located.” Defendant Flynn also stated, “The disparities we are generating, we believe, are well within what we would expect given the victimization data and the offender data.”
156. MPD’s targeting of Black and Latino drivers for stops is not limited, however, to discrete geographic areas in which the MPD purports to engage with Black and Latino communities based on “victimization data” and “offender data.” In fact, the MJS Report found that the greatest racial discrepancies in traffic stops occurred in Milwaukee Police Districts One and Six, which have predominantly white populations. See Ben Poston, “Racial Gaps Found in Traffic Stops in Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 4, 2011. In predominantly white District One, which encompasses downtown and the east side of Milwaukee, Black drivers were stopped 12.6 times as often as white drivers, and Hispanic drivers were stopped four times as often as white drivers. In addition, Black drivers were searched nearly five times as often as white drivers in District One.
157. Over the last several years, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and other local civil rights groups have received numerous letters, emails, phone calls, and social media posts from Black and Latino people complaining that they were subjected to stops, frisks, and searches that were legally unsupported and motivated by race and ethnicity. At town halls organized
36
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 36 of 81 Document 1

by civil rights groups, Black and Latino Milwaukee residents have expressed that they feel threatened, rather than protected, by the MPD. These feelings of fear and mistrust are the result, in part, of being unlawfully targeted for police stops and frisks—sometimes on multiple occasions.
158. In December 2015, following the killing of Dontre Hamilton, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) Office commenced a Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance of the Department to assess MPD policies and practices pertaining to communityoriented policing, use of force, deadly force, and accountability, among other things. At a January 2016 COPS town hall meeting, numerous Milwaukee residents, including Black and Latino people, expressed concern that MPD officers engage in suspicionless stops and racial and ethnic profiling.
D. Elements of the MPD’s Policy, Practice, and Custom of Conducting Police Stops and Frisks Without Reasonable Suspicion and/or Impermissibly Motivated by Race and Ethnicity
159. The MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program involves at least three component policies, practices, and customs of the Defendants that directly and proximately lead to violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI.
37
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 37 of 81 Document 1

1. Pervasive Stops and Frisks in Expansive, So-Called “High-Crime” Areas
160. First, Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and custom of directing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to aggressively use traffic and pedestrian stops and frisks by conducting the aforementioned “saturation patrols” in so-called “high-crime areas.”
161. These “high-crime areas” may include discrete locations designated by MPD as “hot spots” where crime has previously been reported. But, as noted above, the targeted areas expand far beyond the boundaries of any discrete crime “hot spots” to engulf large swaths of Milwaukee Police Districts Three, Five, and Seven, which are all located in the northern half of the City, in largely Black neighborhoods.
162. While purportedly motivated by a desire to disrupt and deter crime, there is no evidence that the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program achieves these goals or adequately responds to specific crime complaints by residents of targeted areas.
163. Defendant Flynn addressed the Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of directing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to aggressively use traffic and pedestrian stops and frisks in designated areas in a 2011 video on Milwaukee Police Traffic Stops (“2011 Traffic Stops Video”). Videotape: Milwaukee Police Traffic Stops (Milwaukee Police Department, Nov. 21, 2011),
38
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 38 of 81 Document 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8q8WONzFI. Defendant Flynn asserted: “We needed this department to be visible and we needed it to be active. We started to take more calls over the phone, and started to create more foot patrols, and more bicycle patrols and time for officers to do directed patrol missions, which means, that hot spot over there, I want you to stop cars and talk to people. I want you to disrupt the environment, because the cops are here now.”
164. The 2014 testimony of MPD officer Jacob Knight in a federal lawsuit challenging an MPD strip search demonstrates the Defendants’ directive to MPD patrol officers to conduct large numbers of stops as part of saturation patrols targeted at so-called “high-crime” areas: “My take on what Compstat was . . . that they wanted dots on a map to show that police work was being done. Like say there’s a violent—you know, say there’s a shooting in a specific area. Compstat wanted dots on a map to say that crime is being taken care of. So they wanted traffic stops and [field interview] stops in that area so they could say that something was being done about it.” Deposition of Jacob Knight, Bohannon v. City of Milwaukee, No. 2:13-cv-01224-JPS (E.D. Wis., Aug. 11, 2014), ECF. No. 65-5. Officer Knight explained that “dots on a map” referred to field interviews. When asked whether these field interviews involved pat-downs or searches, the officer responded that “it would depend” but “yes, the more stops you make, the likelihood of conducting a pat down or search of some nature would increase, yes.”
39
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 39 of 81 Document 1

165. Compstat, which is short for “computer statistics,” is the term applied to a combination of data-driven computer programs and management practices used by police departments to track crime statistics and craft corresponding policing strategies.
2. Formal and Informal Stop Quotas
166. Second, Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and custom of pressuring MPD patrol officers to conduct suspicionless stops and frisks by using productivity measures related to the number of stops and by sanctioning officers who fail to meet formal and informal stop quotas.
167. The number of stops conducted by each officer, squad, and unit are tracked and evaluated at weekly Compstat meetings where commanders and patrol officers are questioned about their statistics by supervisors, including Defendant Flynn.
168. MPD officers have a strong incentive to stop Milwaukee residents for whom there is no objective and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity because Compstat meetings and performance metrics make clear that officer productivity is measured in part by the number of stops conducted, rather than by ensuring that all stops and frisks are legally supported.
40
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 40 of 81 Document 1

169. According to a 2013 report of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Police Executive Research Forum (“PERF Report”), MPD holds regular Compstat meetings that involve a comparison of “individual officer activity (including . . . traffic and subject stops) with districtwide and agency-wide activity. This information is available during the Compstat meetings and on the agency’s intranet, where all officers can view it.” According to the PERF Report, Defendant Flynn stated, “I want officers to know that the chief is seeing their name, whether they’re doing well or need to improve their performance.”
170. Defendant Flynn and supervising MPD officers’ emphasis on the number of stops sends patrol officers the clear message that the quantity of stops matters more than whether the encounters are supported by reasonable suspicion and are not motivated by race or ethnicity.
171. Over the years, Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of pressuring MPD patrol officers to conduct increased stops has solidified into an implicit and/or explicit quota system requiring a certain number of stops per month for each MPD officer. On information and belief, MPD officers who fail to meet the productivity standards face adverse employment consequences. In their effort to satisfy these productivity standards, MPD officers across the Department routinely
41
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 41 of 81 Document 1

conduct suspicionless stops and frisks, like the ones to which the named Plaintiffs were subjected.
172. On May 5, 2016, Milwaukee Police Association President Michael Crivello wrote a letter to Defendant FPC protesting the imposition of an “absolute quota” requiring MPD officers to conduct at least two traffic stops per day. Letter from Michael V. Crivello, President, Milwaukee Police Association to Fire and Police Commission, May 5, 2016, http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/agendas5/160728_I II_D.pdf (“Crivello Letter”). Referring to the “quota like mandate” announced at MPD’s March 2016 Compstat meeting, Crivello’s letter stated, in pertinent part: “Police officers were clearly directed that the norm, or average, was two traffic stops per day. The requirement therefore moving forward, was that everyone would be required to produce two stops every day. For those that did not comply, they could expect progressive discipline up to and including termination. Ultimately, this places our officers in a very difficult situation; basically, stops must be made to preserve employment, rather than to facilitate public safety.”
173. Crivello’s letter also noted: “Roll Call guidance specifically directed those who were not meeting the requirement should stop vehicles on the way to assignments. The information relayed: that while on the way to a Priority 3 or 4 assignment, traffic stops would be acceptable/encouraged. This should raise great
42
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 42 of 81 Document 1

concern . . . assignments can easily be under prioritized relative to insufficient information; or more likely, the longer it takes the officer to arrive – the more likely the assignment will evolve to greater concern, i.e., Priority 1 or 2 seriousness.”
174. Crivello’s letter protested that “it is simply wrong, inappropriate, and without value to mandate quantity of stops over quality.”
175. In July 2016, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that at an FPC meeting earlier that month, Mr. Crivello “testified that he had spoken with a police officer who said he had been transferred to another office after failing to make a certain number of stops.” Hannah Schwarz, “MPD Officials Say No Traffic Stop Quota Exists,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 28, 2016. At the meeting, MPD Assistant Police Chief James Harpole admitted that MPD officers were being encouraged to increase the number of traffic stops and that the March 2016 meeting had “featured a video with a two stop per officer model.” Id.
176. Despite being placed on notice about informal and/or formal stop quotas for MPD officers, upon information and belief, Defendants Flynn and FPC have taken no corrective action to ensure that MPD officers conduct stops in compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.
43
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 43 of 81 Document 1

3. Targeting So-Called “Known Offenders” for Suspicionless Stops and Frisks
177. Third, Defendants have a policy, practice, and custom of directing and encouraging MPD officers to repeatedly stop people with any past involvement in the criminal justice system, including a citation for a minor infraction, as a purported crime deterrence strategy. This policy, practice, and custom encourages MPD patrol officers to stop people simply because of alleged past conduct, leads directly to stops unsupported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and encourages MPD officers to conduct frisks of those they have stopped, even absent individualized and objective reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous.
178. Defendant Flynn has directed MPD officers to target so-called “known offenders” and “frequent fliers” for stops and frisks. He has made numerous statements encouraging officers to stop people with criminal histories, regardless of the specific circumstances in which police officers encounter them. His statements fail to acknowledge that stops must be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and send the message that reasonable suspicion is not required.
179. For instance, in the 2011 Traffic Stops Video, Chief Flynn stated: “If we know 10% of our offenders are responsible for 50% of the crime . . . we’ve got to target those guys. We’ve got to drive around looking for people. And if we see
44
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 44 of 81 Document 1

them, we have to encounter them and engage them. Most of the time, they are not carrying anything bad. But once we get inside their head, we’re hoping we’re gonna affect their behavior.” Videotape: Milwaukee Police Traffic Stops (Milwaukee Police Department, Nov. 21, 2011), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8q8WONzFI.
180. In the 2011 Traffic Stops Video, Defendant Flynn encouraged MPD officers to “develop the social antenna to know who’s who.” He further explained: “Twenty-four people well-known to us have been stopped 293 times. Now why do you think we are doing that? Because we know the guy! Ok, we know the guy is a bad guy. If I know a guy’s been arrested several times for drugs or burglary and I see him driving slow around the neighborhood, what do you want us to do?”
181. The Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of targeting people with a past citation or other criminal history also leads to disproportionate stops and frisks of Black and Latino people because these groups are more likely to have past involvement with the criminal justice system, due, in no small part, to saturation policing of their neighborhoods and consequent citations for low-level offenses. These citations are themselves frequently the result of the City’s policy, practice, and custom of targeting of Black and Latino people for stops and frisks that are not supported by reasonable suspicion.
45
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 45 of 81 Document 1

E. Evidence of Stops and Frisks That Lack Reasonable Suspicion 182. MPD public record disclosures indicate that the MPD’s high-volume,
suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has led to routine and pervasive MPD stops and frisks that are unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
183. On April 14, 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (collectively, “ACLU”) submitted a request under the Wisconsin public records law, Wisconsin Statute § 19.31-39, to Defendant Milwaukee and the MPD for MPD policies, guidelines, training documents, and specific data on all stops and frisks conducted by MPD between January 1, 2008 and the date of the request (“Records Request”).
184. On November 7, 2014, in response to the Records Request, the MPD provided data from the MPD’s Tiburon Records Management System (hereinafter “Tiburon disclosure”). The Tiburon disclosure includes data on traffic and pedestrian stops conducted between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012, which were recorded in the Tiburon Records Management System (“Tiburon Data”). Putting aside small numbers of records with missing data, Tiburon Data provides the following information for each recorded stop: the stop location; a designated “Reason Code,” which provides information concerning the basis for the stop; and the race, age, and gender of the person stopped.
46
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 46 of 81 Document 1

185. As part of a preliminary analysis of the Tiburon Data, 34,920 stops documented in the data were successfully matched to a specific location in Milwaukee and geocoded, yielding a scientifically acceptable geocoding hit rate (“Tiburon Geocoded Stops”).
186. The Tiburon disclosure strongly suggests that MPD officers routinely lack the reasonable suspicion required to conduct a stop.
187. At least 42% of the 34,920 Tiburon Geocoded Stops lack any identified reason that could plausibly show that an MPD officer had individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop. Specifically, 14,759 of the stops are marked with the Reason Code “Other,” “Null,” “Suspicious Circumstances,” “Suspicious Person,” or “Suspicious Vehicle.” None of these “reasons,” without more information, amount to individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that would justify stopping the person in question. Neither the Tiburon disclosure nor any other information disclosed by MPD in response to the Records Request contains any additional facts about the circumstances of these 14,759 Tiburon Geocoded Stops that would demonstrate that the officer had reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity prior to making the stop.
188. On information and belief, no other documentation exists to demonstrate that there was reasonable suspicion for each of the 14,759 Tiburon
47
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 47 of 81 Document 1

Geocoded Stops associated with the ambiguous reasons listed above, which were conducted between 2010 and 2012.
189. On December 5, 2014, in response to the Records Request, the MPD disclosed data on traffic and pedestrian stops from the MPD’s Traffic and Criminal Software module (“TraCS disclosure”). The TraCS disclosure includes data on stops conducted between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, which were recorded in TraCS (“TraCS Data”). Putting aside small numbers of records with missing data, the TraCS Data provides the following information for each recorded stop: the stop location; broad information concerning the basis for the stop; additional information concerning the basis for the stop; and the race, age, and gender of the person stopped.
190. As part of a preliminary analysis, TraCS Data on 507,006 stops were successfully matched to a specific location in Milwaukee and geocoded, yielding a scientifically acceptable geocoding hit rate (“TraCS Geocoded Stops”).
191. The TraCS disclosure strongly suggests that MPD officers often lack the reasonable suspicion required to conduct lawful stops.
192. At least 41,117 records, or 8.1% of the TraCS Geocoded Traffic Stops, lack any information that would plausibly demonstrate that an MPD officer had individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity prior to making the stop. Of the 507,006 TraCS Geocoded Stops, some
48
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 48 of 81 Document 1

16,049 stop records were marked only with the term “FIELD INTERVIEW STOP” as the Reason Code and had no additional details in either of the two “reason” fields where officers could have recorded additional information about the basis of the stop. Similarly, of the 507,006 TraCS Geocoded Stops, some 25,068 stop records were marked only with the term “TRAFFIC STOP” as the Reason Code for the stop, and had no additional details in either of the two “reason” fields where officers could have recorded additional information about the basis of the stop. Neither the TraCS disclosure nor any other information disclosed by MPD in response to the Records Request contains any additional facts about the circumstances of these 41,117 TraCS Geocoded Stops that would demonstrate that the officer had reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity prior to making the stop.
193. On information and belief, no other documentation exists to demonstrate that MPD officers had individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion to conduct the 41,117 TraCS Geocoded Stops conducted between 2011 and 2013, as discussed above.
194. In 2015 and 2016, the ACLU submitted requests to the MPD under the Wisconsin public records law, Wisconsin Statute § 19.31–39, for all MPD documents concerning each of the Plaintiffs. The MPD did not disclose any
49
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 49 of 81 Document 1

records setting forth the reason why any of the Plaintiffs were subjected to the stops or frisks described in this Complaint.
195. Additionally, as a matter of practice and custom, MPD officers routinely and systematically fail to document frisks and the basis for frisks in a manner that would permit supervisors to identify frisks that are unsupported by reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous and/or are motivated by race or ethnicity. Neither the Tiburon Data nor the TraCS Data indicate whether any of the pedestrian and traffic stops documented in these databases involved a frisk or a search, much less the basis of any frisk or search.
196. The Records Request sought information on all MPD frisks conducted between January 1, 2008 and April 14, 2014, including the total number of frisks and the reason for which each frisk was conducted. The MPD failed to disclose any information concerning frisks and stated that “the Milwaukee Police Department does not keep statistical data on ‘frisks.’” August 1, 2014 Letter from Vickie Gagliano, MPD, to Nusrat Choudhury, American Civil Liberties Union, at 3.
F. Evidence of Stops and Frisks Motivated by Race and Ethnicity 197. Data on MPD stops and analysis of that data provide further evidence
that the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has resulted in stops and frisks that have a discriminatory impact on Black and Latino people and are motivated by race or ethnicity.
50
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 50 of 81 Document 1

198. The 2011 MJS Report addressed four months of 2011 traffic stop data demonstrating that, compared to white drivers, Black drivers were seven times more likely and Hispanic drivers were five times more likely to be subjected to traffic stops throughout Milwaukee. It also concluded, “Wider disparities emerge when the stop rates are compared to Milwaukee’s driving population, based on the number of licensed drivers by race and ethnicity.”
199. Census estimates for the period 2010–2014 suggest that Black nonHispanic residents made up 34.3% of Milwaukee’s total population at that time.
200. Preliminary analysis of Tiburon Geocoded Pedestrian Stops from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012, reveals that Black non-Hispanic people represented 72% of those stopped even though they made up an estimated 34% of the City’s total population at the time, according to U.S. Census figures.
201. Preliminary analysis of TraCS Geocoded Stops from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013, reveals that Black non-Hispanic people represented 62.7% of those subjected to traffic and pedestrian stops, even though they made up an estimated 34% of the City’s total population at the time, according to U.S. Census figures.
202. Locating (geocoding) individual records from Tiburon Data and TraCS Data permitted connecting data on MPD stops to information about the community in which the stop took place, and the calculation of MPD stop rates for
51
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 51 of 81 Document 1

Black non-Hispanic people and white non-Hispanic people. It also permitted an estimation of the net impact of race on MPD stop rates because this preliminary analysis controlled for the following factors: community socioeconomic status, community residential stability, community racial and ethnic composition, the surrounding level of police stop activity in nearby communities, and district level violent crime rates for the previous calendar year.
203. Preliminary analysis of the Tiburon Geocoded Stops found that from 2010 to 2012, in many areas of the city, the predicted MPD stop rate for Black non-Hispanic people was well over twice as high as the predicted MPD stop rate for white non-Hispanic people. This difference reflects the net impact of race because the analysis controlled for the various community and policing factors, as described above. This racial disparity in stop rates was sizable and statistically significant at the 99.9% confidence level, which means that such a disparity could have occurred just because of chance alone fewer than one time in a thousand.
204. Preliminary analysis of the TraCS Gecoded Stops conducted from 2011 to 2013 found that the predicted MPD stop rate for Black non-Hispanic people was well over twice as high as the predicted stop rate for non-Hispanic white civilians. This difference reflects the net impact of race because the analysis controlled for the various community and policing factors, as described above. This racial disparity in stop rates was sizable and statistically significant at the
52
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 52 of 81 Document 1

99.9% confidence level, which means that such a disparity would be expected to have occurred just because of chance alone fewer than one time in a thousand.
205. Preliminary analysis of the TraCS Geocoded Stops conducted from 2011 to 2013 also found that a Black non-Hispanic person who is subjected to a stop faces significantly higher odds of being searched versus not searched, compared to the odds that a stopped, white non-Hispanic person will be searched versus not searched. This difference reflects the net impact of race because the analysis controlled for the various community and policing factors, as described above. This racial disparity in stop rates was sizable and statistically significant at the 99.9% confidence level, which means that such a disparity could have occurred just because of chance alone fewer than one time in a thousand.
G. Defendants’ Knowledge of Widespread Rights Violations 206. At the time that Plaintiffs were unlawfully stopped or stopped and
frisked by MPD officers, Defendants were on notice that MPD officers were engaging in unlawful stops and frisks.
207. Defendant Flynn is tasked with overseeing the day-to-day operations of the MPD and is the final decision-maker with respect to the development and implementation of MPD law enforcement tactics and strategies.
208. Defendant Flynn’s public statements, the 2011 MJS Report, the Crivello Letter, and the order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of
53
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 53 of 81 Document 1

Wisconsin in Hardy v. City of Milwaukee, 88 F.Supp.3d 852 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 27, 2015), among other things, demonstrate Defendant Flynn’s longstanding awareness that unlawful MPD stops and frisks have been commonplace.
209. As discussed above, Defendant Flynn nevertheless continues to implement and enforce the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program even though he is aware, or should be aware, that the program results in the routine and pervasive violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of Milwaukee residents.
210. Defendant FPC is required by law to “[c]onduct a policy review of all aspects of the operations of the police and fire departments,” and to “[u]se oversight authority to identify systemic problems within the police and fire departments, identify opportunities for improvement through organizational change, and delegate authority for follow-up to the respective chief.” Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 314-3-1, 4. Defendant FPC is responsible for investigating citizen complaints concerning the MPD and disciplining MPD employees for misconduct, among other things.
211. Broadly speaking, the FPC’s oversight of the MPD is to be informed by, among other things, regular meetings with Defendant Flynn and his staff, research and analysis of relevant policies and procedures, and input from the general public.
54
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 54 of 81 Document 1

212. As such, Defendant FPC is intimately familiar with MPD law enforcement strategies and complaints lodged by members of the public regarding the nature and impact of MPD’s law enforcement activities, including stop-andfrisk practices.
213. Indeed, the Executive Director of Defendant FPC is required by law to “[e]valuate police and fire department policies, practices, and patterns, including but not limited to deployment of staff . . . search, seizure, [and] citizen interaction and communication.” Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 314-5.
214. Defendant FPC is aware of, and has effectively ratified and sanctioned, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program, despite the fact that it knew or should have known—based in part on Defendant Flynn’s public statements, the 2011 MJS Report, the Crivello Letter, and the Hardy order, among other things—that this strategy resulted in the pervasive and routine violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of Milwaukee residents.
H. The Defendants Fail to Properly Train and Supervise MPD Officers 215. Defendants FPC and Flynn, as final policymakers for Defendant
Milwaukee, fail to properly train and supervise MPD officers, knowing that such failures will result in violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI.
55
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 55 of 81 Document 1

216. Defendant Flynn’s responsibilities include the development and implementation of MPD rules and guidelines, and the identification of areas in which MPD officers should be trained and/or retrained.
217. Because of its oversight responsibilities, Defendant FPC is intimately familiar with MPD training and supervision policies, including those that pertain to stop-and-frisk practices.
218. As discussed above, Defendant FPC’s responsibilities include identifying systemic problems with MPD practices that require policy reform and training, including through independent investigation and the monitoring of citizen complaints. In its oversight role, Defendant FPC is obligated to ensure that Defendant Flynn properly trains and/or retrains MPD staff to ensure that stops and frisks that are conducted are constitutional and comply with Title VI.
219. Defendants Flynn and FPC have failed, and continue to fail, to properly train and supervise MPD officers, including supervisors, concerning the legal and factual bases for conducting stops and frisks that comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI.
220. Defendants Flynn and FPC have also failed, and continue to fail, to properly train and supervise MPD officers, including supervisors, concerning adequate documentation of the bases for stops and frisks in a manner that permits supervisors to ensure that stops are supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal
56
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 56 of 81 Document 1

activity, that frisks are supported by reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous, and that neither stops nor frisks are motivated by race or ethnicity.
221. The MPD’s response to the Records Request provides evidence of Defendants Flynn and FPC’s failure to train.
222. The Records Request sought “[a]ll records, including training materials, manuals, protocols, procedures, regulations, and guidelines, created since January 1, 2008, setting forth the MPD’s policies concerning: a. the stop, frisk, search and arrest of pedestrians. . . .” In response, the MPD disclosed MPD Standard Operating Procedure 710 on Field Interview/Traffic Warning Cards (“SOP 710”), and MPD Standard Operating Procedure 085 (“SOP 085”) on Citizen Contacts, Field Interviews, and Search and Seizure.
223. From the year 2000 through June 1, 2013, SOP 710 required MPD officers to document field interviews and minor traffic violations that did not lead to arrest on a Field Interview/Traffic Warning Card, but did not require officers to document individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity supporting a stop on the Card or explain that such documentation would permit supervisory review for compliance with constitutional requirements.
224. SOP 085 has been in force since June 2, 2013, and has been revised twice. SOP 085 has required, and continues to require, that MPD officers document information about field interviews that do not result in a citation or arrest
57
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 57 of 81 Document 1

in the Tiburon Field Interview Module. But SOP 085 has not instructed, and continues to fail to instruct, that officers who conduct stops should document sufficient information to demonstrate that the stop was supported by individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity so as to permit supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI.
225. Moreover, Defendants have failed to promulgate any MPD policy, procedure, or guideline requiring officers who conduct frisks to document the bases of these encounters, so as to permit supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI. Neither SOP 710 nor SOP 085, in any of their past or current iterations, has instructed officers to document frisks or the basis for frisks. Form PF-4, which SOP 085 requires officers to complete to document field interviews that do not result in citation or arrest, does not elicit information about whether a field interview included a frisk or the basis of any such frisk.
226. Defendants’ inadequate training and supervision of MPD officers who conduct stops and frisks and their supervisors is a direct and proximate cause of the MPD’s rampant unconstitutional stops and frisks.
227. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant FPC and Defendant Flynn’s leadership and failure to train and supervise MPD officers, tens of
58
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 58 of 81 Document 1

thousands of people have been subjected to unlawful stops and frisks, many times
simply because of their race or ethnicity.
228. By failing to properly train and supervise MPD officers, the
Defendants have acted recklessly and with deliberate indifference to the
constitutional rights of those who would come into contact with MPD.
I. The Defendants Have a Policy, Practice, and Custom of Failing to Monitor and Discipline MPD Officers 229. The MPD’s widespread abuses are also a direct and proximate result
of Defendants’ failure to properly and adequately monitor, discipline, and take
necessary corrective action against MPD officers who engage in, encourage, or
conceal unconstitutional practices. Among other things, Defendants Flynn and
FPC, as final policymakers for Defendant Milwaukee, knowingly, deliberately, and
recklessly have failed to:
a. take appropriate disciplinary action and corrective measures against MPD officers who have engaged in suspicionless stops and frisks;
b. take appropriate disciplinary action and corrective measures against officers who have engaged in stops or frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity;
c. monitor adequately MPD officers who have incurred a substantial number of civilian complaints, even in instances where the number of complaints should have triggered monitoring under established departmental guidelines;
d. conduct adequate auditing to determine whether the stops and frisks conducted by MPD officers comply with any written policies prohibiting
59
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 59 of 81 Document 1

stops and frisks that are not based upon reasonable suspicion and that use race or ethnicity as a motivating factor in initiating police action;
e. take sufficient, if any, steps to curb MPD officers’ non-compliance with departmental directives requiring PF-4 forms to be completed for each field interview that does not lead to a citation or arrest, and subsequent entry of data on PF-4 forms into the Tiburon Field Interview Module;
f. take sufficient, if any, steps to curb MPD officers’ non-compliance with departmental directives requiring TraCS traffic stop data collection forms to be completed for each traffic stop, and subsequent entry of data on such forms into the Traffic and Criminal Software Module;
g. take sufficient corrective and remedial action against MPD officers who provide fabricated, false, or impermissible justifications for stops and frisks;
h. take sufficient corrective, disciplinary, and remedial action against command staff and supervising officers involved in the institution of a formal or informal numerical quota for stops and/or frisks; and
i. take sufficient corrective, disciplinary and remedial action against MPD officers who conceal or fail to report police misconduct.
230. Defendants have failed to properly and adequately monitor, discipline
and take necessary corrective action against MPD officers as described above,
knowing that such omissions would lead to Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth
Amendment, and Title VI violations.
231. Defendants’ inadequate monitoring of MPD officers who conduct
stops and frisks and their supervisors, and failure to discipline those who engage in
unconstitutional conduct is a direct and proximate cause of the MPD’s rampant
unconstitutional stops and frisks.
60
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 60 of 81 Document 1

232. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant FPC and Defendant Flynn’s leadership and inadequate monitoring and discipline of MPD officers and supervisors, tens of thousands of people have been subjected to unlawful stops and frisks, many times simply because of their race or ethnicity.
233. By such acts and omissions, they have acted recklessly and with deliberate indifference to the constitutional and statutory rights of those who would come into contact with the MPD.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS Main Class
234. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the named Plaintiffs seek to represent a Main Class consisting of all persons who, since January 7, 2008, have been or will be stopped and/or stopped and frisked by MPD officers.
235. The Main Class is sufficiently numerous such that joinder of all members is impracticable. Each year, MPD officers stop around 200,000 people in Milwaukee, thousands of whom are subjected to these encounters absent reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.
236. In addition, joinder is impracticable because, upon information and belief, many members of the Main Class are not aware that their rights under the U.S. Constitution and Title VI have been violated and that they have the right to
61
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 61 of 81 Document 1

seek redress in court. Many members of the Main Class are without the means to
retain an attorney to represent them in a civil rights lawsuit. Moreover, many Main
Class members who have been victimized by the MPD’s unconstitutional policies,
practices, and customs do not bring individual claims for fear of retaliation and
reprisals by MPD officers. There is no appropriate avenue for the protection of the
Main Class members’ constitutional rights other than a class action.
237. The Main Class members share a number of common questions of law
and fact, including, but not limited to:
a. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of targeting expansive geographic areas for large numbers of stops and frisks;
b. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of measuring officer productivity according to informal or formal stop quotas and sanctioning officers who fail to meet those quotas;
c. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of authorizing MPD officers to target people with criminal histories for repeated stops without regard for individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct as required by the Fourth Amendment;
d. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of authorizing and encouraging stops that are unsupported by individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct as required by the Fourth Amendment;
e. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting frisks in the absence of objective and reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe that the person is armed and dangerous, as required under the Fourth Amendment;
62
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 62 of 81 Document 1

f. whether Defendants have failed to properly train, supervise, monitor, and/or discipline MPD officers, and whether those failures have caused MPD officers to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the Main Class members; and
g. whether Defendants have encouraged, sanctioned, acquiesced to, and/or failed to rectify unconstitutional stops and/or stops and frisks by MPD officers of which they were aware or should have been aware, and whether such acts and/or omissions have caused MPD officers to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Main Class members.
238. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Main
Class. Like the other members of the Main Class, each of the named Plaintiffs has
been and likely will again be stopped and/or stopped and frisked by MPD officers.
239. The named Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under legal
theories that are the same or similar to those on which all members of the Main
Class will rely. The named Plaintiffs suffered harms that are typical of the harms
suffered by the Main Class members.
240. The named Plaintiffs have a strong personal interest in the outcome of
this action, have no conflicts of interest with members of the Main Class, and will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Main Class. All named Main Class
members reside in Milwaukee or visit it frequently. So long as the Defendants’
high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program continues, the named Plaintiffs
remain at risk of being illegally stopped and/or stopped and frisked by MPD
officers. Indeed, at least two of the named Plaintiffs have been stopped repeatedly
63
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 63 of 81 Document 1

by MPD officers. None of the named Plaintiffs is seeking compensatory or punitive damages.
241. By developing and maintaining a policy, practice, and custom of highvolume, suspicionless stops and frisks, the Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Main Class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
Subclass 242. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Subclass consisting of Black and Latino members of the Main Class. 243. This Subclass is sufficiently numerous such that joinder of all members is impracticable. A majority of those stopped and/or frisked in Milwaukee are Black or Latino. Annually, MPD officers stop more than 100,000 Black and Latino people in Milwaukee; upon information and belief, thousands of these encounters are impermissibly motivated by race and/or ethnicity. 244. Members of the Subclass share a number of common questions of law and fact, including, but not limited to: a. whether the Defendants have a policy, practice, or custom of targeting
predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods for MPD saturation patrols; b. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and custom of targeting Black and Latino people for stops and frisks based on race and
64
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 64 of 81 Document 1

ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI;
c. whether Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting stops and frisks has an adverse effect on Black and Latino people and is motivated by race and ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI;
d. whether the Defendants have failed to properly train, supervise, monitor, and/or discipline MPD officers, and whether those failures have caused MPD officers to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Subclass members; and,
e. whether the Defendants have encouraged, sanctioned, and/or failed to rectify unconstitutional stops and/or stops and frisks by MPD officers, and whether such acts and/or omissions have caused MPD officers to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Subclass members.
245. The claims of the named Plaintiffs, all of whom are Black or Latino
people who were stopped by MPD officers on at least one occasion, are typical of
the claims of the Subclass.
246. The named Plaintiffs have a strong personal interest in the outcome of
this action, have no conflicts of interest with members of the Subclass, and will
fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Subclass.
247. By developing and maintaining a policy, practice, and/or custom of
conducting stops and frisks that encourages, or otherwise causes, stops and frisks
that are motivated by race and ethnicity, Defendants have acted or refused to act on
grounds that apply generally to the Subclass, so that final injunctive relief or
corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Subclass as a whole.
65
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 65 of 81 Document 1

248. The named Plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation; and Covington & Burling LLP. All counsel are experienced civil rights attorneys who have litigated a range of class action lawsuits, including matters involving systemic constitutional violations by law enforcement officials. Plaintiffs’ counsel have the resources, expertise, and experience to prosecute this action. Counsel for the Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among members of the class or between the attorneys and members of the class.
249. The Plaintiff Main Class and Subclass should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Main Class and Subclass, making class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.
LEGAL CLAIMS Claim 1
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BY THE GOVERNMENT
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
250. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.
66
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 66 of 81 Document 1

251. This claim is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed Main Class.
252. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. As such, it prohibits police from subjecting a person to a stop in the absence of individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Fourth Amendment also prohibits police from subjecting a person to a frisk in the absence of individualized, objective and articulable reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is armed and dangerous.
253. The Defendants developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and custom of subjecting members of the Main Class to police stops without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and frisking members of the Main Class without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, as required by the Fourth Amendment.
254. Each of the named Plaintiffs suffered a violation of his or her clearly established right to be free from suspicionless police stops when stopped as a pedestrian or driver by at least one MPD officer while engaged in routine, lawful activities, and under circumstances that did not give rise to individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. As a result,
67
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 67 of 81 Document 1

each Plaintiff was detained by an MPD officer, questioned, and made to suffer the humiliation and indignity of being wrongfully branded a criminal suspect on at least one occasion. D.A. and Mr. Chambers were subjected to at least three unlawful MPD stops.
255. D.A. and Ms. Silvestre suffered the additional violation of their clearly established right to be free from suspicionless police frisks when at least one MPD officer frisked and/or searched them under circumstances that did not give rise to individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that they were armed or dangerous.
256. The Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs directly and proximately caused, and continue to cause, the violation of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
257. As a result of the Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, all named Plaintiffs suffered harm, including humiliation, pain, physical injuries, emotional distress, loss of liberty, and/or violations of their constitutional and statutory rights.
258. Defendants’ conduct continues to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals in Milwaukee on a daily basis, and is the proximate cause of widespread harm among members of the Main Class.
68
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 68 of 81 Document 1

259. These constitutional abuses were, and are, directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the Defendants, including: (a) the saturation of expansive, so-called “high-crime” areas with suspicionless stops and frisks; (b) the adoption of informal and/or formal stop quotas for MPD officers; (c) the targeting of so-called “known offenders” for suspicionless stops; (d) the failure to properly train and supervise MPD officers, including supervisors; (e) the failure to properly and adequately monitor MPD officers; and (f) the overt and tacit encouragement and sanctioning of, and failure to rectify, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program. The Defendants knew, or should have known, of the MPD’s longstanding policy, practice, and custom of conducting suspicionless stops and frisks. Defendants’ actions and inactions were deliberately indifferent to the clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Main Class.
260. The Defendants have acquiesced to the well-settled, longstanding, and widespread suspicionless stops and frisks that have resulted and continue to result from the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program. The MPD’s practice of conducting suspicionless stops and frisks has therefore become policy, practice, and custom with the force of law, and reflects deliberate indifference on
69
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 69 of 81 Document 1

the part of the Defendants to the Fourth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Main Class.
261. All Plaintiffs reside in, and/or frequently travel to, the neighborhoods where they have been previously stopped or stopped and frisked, as described above, as well as neighborhoods that are routinely targeted for large numbers of MPD suspicionless stops, including Milwaukee Police Districts Three, Five, and Seven. In addition, D.A. and Mr. Chambers have each been subjected to at least three unlawful MPD stops. As a result, Plaintiffs face not only a reasonable likelihood, but a substantial threat, that they will again be subjected to unlawful stops and frisks by MPD officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
262. The Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions place Plaintiffs at continuing and foreseeable risk of being subjected to suspicionless stops and frisks, and of experiencing the stigmatization and humiliation of being treated like criminal suspects. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Main Class, seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief because they have no adequate remedy at law to prevent future injury caused by being subjected to suspicionless stops and frisks in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
263. Defendants act under color of state law when their actions, policies, practices, customs, and omissions create a real, imminent, and substantial threat
70
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 70 of 81 Document 1

that Plaintiffs will again be stopped and frisked in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, and their acts and omissions can be fairly attributed to the City.
Claim 2 VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
264. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.
265. This claim is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed Subclass.
266. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that all people be treated equally under the law without regard for, among other things, their race or ethnicity. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. As such, it prohibits law enforcement officers from conducting racial and ethnic profiling in stop-and-frisk practices. It also prohibits police from conducting stops and frisks in a manner that has a discriminatory effect on a racial or ethnic group, and that is motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
267. The Defendants developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and custom of MPD stops and frisks of members of the Subclass that results in significant racial and ethnic disparities and that is
71
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 71 of 81 Document 1

motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. Defendants’ policy, practice and custom of high-volume, suspicionless stops and frisks involves racial and ethnic profiling.
268. Each of the named Plaintiffs is Black or Latino, and suffered a violation of his or her clearly established right to equal protection of the law when he or she was subjected to a police stop, or stop and frisk, motivated by race and/or ethnicity, rather than the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. As a result, each Plaintiff was detained by an MPD officer, questioned, and made to suffer the humiliation and indignity of being wrongfully branded a criminal suspect.
269. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs directly and proximately caused, and continue to cause, the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the law.
270. As a result of the policies, practices, customs, and conduct of the Defendants, all named Plaintiffs suffered harm, including humiliation, pain, physical injuries, and/or emotional distress, loss of liberty, and/or violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. Defendants’ conduct continues to violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Black and Latino people in Milwaukee on a daily basis and is the proximate cause of widespread harm among members of the Subclass.
72
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 72 of 81 Document 1

271. These constitutional abuses were, and are, directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the Defendants, including: (a) the saturation of expansive, so-called “high-crime” areas with suspicionless stops and frisks; (b) the adoption of informal and/or formal stop quotas for MPD officers; (c) the targeting of so-called “known offenders” for suspicionless stops; (d) the failure to properly train MPD officers, including supervisors; (e) the failure to properly and adequately monitor MPD officers; and (f) the overt and tacit encouragement and sanctioning of, and failure to rectify, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stopand-frisk program despite its adverse impact on Black and Latino people. The Defendants knew, or should have known, of the City’s longstanding policy, practice, pattern, and custom of conducting suspicionless stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity. Their actions and inactions were deliberately indifferent to the clearly established constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.
272. The Defendants have acquiesced to the well-settled, longstanding, and widespread stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity, which have resulted and continue to result from the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stopand-frisk program. The MPD’s practice of conducting suspicionless stops and frisks that are motivated by race and ethnicity has therefore become policy, practice, and custom with the force of law, and reflects deliberate indifference to
73
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 73 of 81 Document 1

the rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Subclass under the Fourteenth Amendment.
273. All Plaintiffs are Black or Latino and reside in, and/or frequently travel to, the neighborhoods where they have been previously stopped, or stopped and frisked, as described above, as well as neighborhoods that are routinely targeted for large numbers of MPD suspicionless stops, including Milwaukee Police Districts Three, Five, and Seven. In addition, D.A. and Mr. Chambers have each been subjected to at least three unlawful MPD stops. As a result, Plaintiffs face not only a reasonable likelihood, but a substantial threat, that they will again be subjected to unlawful stops and frisks by MPD officers, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
274. The Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions place Plaintiffs at continuing and foreseeable risk of being subjected to stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity, and of experiencing the stigmatization and humiliation of being treated like criminal suspects. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Subclass, seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief because they have no adequate remedy at law to prevent future injury caused by being subjected to stops and frisks that are motivated by race and ethnicity in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights.
74
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 74 of 81 Document 1

275. The Defendants act under color of state law when their actions, policies, practices, customs, and omissions create a real, imminent, and substantial threat that the Plaintiffs will again be stopped and frisked in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and their acts and omissions can be fairly attributed to the City.
Claim 3 VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.
276. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.
277. This claim is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed Subclass.
278. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, including law enforcement programs and activities. Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. As such, it prohibits law enforcement officers from conducting racial and ethnic profiling in stop-and-frisk practices. It also prohibits police from conducting stops and frisks in a manner that has a discriminatory effect on a racial or ethnic group, and that is motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
75
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 75 of 81 Document 1

279. The Defendants are recipients of substantial amounts of federal financial assistance, including financial assistance for law enforcement activities.
280. The Defendants developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and custom of MPD stops and frisks of members of the Subclass that results in significant disparate impact on Black and Latino people and that is motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. Defendants’ policy, practice and custom of high-volume, suspicionless stops and frisks involves racial and ethnic profiling.
281. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned policies, practices, customs, and acts, the named Plaintiffs and members of the Subclass have suffered injuries and have been deprived of their rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Without appropriate injunctive relief, these violations will continue to occur.
RELIEF REQUESTED Wherefore, the named Plaintiffs and other members of the Main Class and Subclass they seek to represent respectfully request that: A. The Court assume jurisdiction over this action; B. The Court issue an Order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the Main Class and Subclass;
76
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 76 of 81 Document 1

C. The Court issue a class-wide judgment declaring that the Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of conducting suspicionless police stops and frisks, as challenged in this Complaint, violates the rights of the Main Class under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
D. The Court issue a class-wide judgment declaring that the Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of conducting stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity, as challenged in this Complaint, violates the rights of the Subclass under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;
E. The Court issue an Order for the following injunctive relief: a. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting police stops without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; b. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting police frisks without reasonable suspicion that the subject of the frisk is armed and dangerous; c. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity;
77
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 77 of 81 Document 1

d. Enjoining the use of formal or informal quotas for stops and frisks by MPD officers;
e. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement improved policies and programs with respect to training, supervision, monitoring, and discipline that will eliminate the policy, practice, pattern, and custom of suspicionless stops and frisks;
f. Requiring the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement improved policies and programs with respect to training, supervision, monitoring, and discipline to eliminate the Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of suspicionless stops and frisks that are motived by race or ethnicity;
g. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement appropriate and adequate supervision and discipline of MPD officers who conduct stops and frisks;
h. Requiring the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to implement appropriate measures to ensure that MPD officers document all stops and frisks, the basis for each stop and frisk, and demographic and location information related to each encounter, regardless of whether the encounter is followed by the use of force,
78
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 78 of 81 Document 1

consent search, citation, or arrest, and to do so in sufficient detail as to permit supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. i. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to implement appropriate measures to ensure that documentation of all traffic and pedestrian stops and frisks is retained in a single, up-to-date computerized database; j. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to make publicly available data on all stops and frisks conducted by the MPD on a semiannual basis, including information on the race, ethnicity, location, and reasons for stops and frisks; k. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC and Flynn to monitor and audit MPD stop-and-frisk policies, practices, and customs, to ensure that stops and frisks comport with constitutional and statutory requirements, including by, among other things, periodically reviewing forms documenting stops and frisks and analyzing data on stops and frisks. F. The Court award reasonable attorneys’ fees to all Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
79
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 79 of 81 Document 1

G. The Court award costs of litigation to all Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§§ 1920 and 1988; and
H. The Court award such other and further relief as this Court may deem
appropriate and in the interests of justice.
Respectfully Submitted this 22nd day of February,
s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY N.Y. State Bar No. 4538302 JASON WILLIAMSON N.Y. State Bar No. 4645529 Attorneys for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc. 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Fax: (212) 549-2654 nchoudhury@aclu.org jwilliamson@aclu.org
KARYN L. ROTKER WI State Bar No. 1007719 LAURENCE J. DUPUIS WI State Bar No. 1029261 Attorneys for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation 207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 272-4032 Fax: (414) 272-0182 krotker@aclu-wi.org ldupuis@aclu-wi.org
80
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 80 of 81 Document 1

ANTHONY HERMAN D.C. Bar No. 424643 SHANYA DINGLE D.C. Bar No. 1035007 ELIZABETH SAXE D.C. Bar No. 1010846 JUSTIN GOLART VA State Bar No. 83929 KERREL MURRAY VA State Bar No. 87844 JESSICA JENSEN CA State Bar No. 308820 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Covington & Burling LLP 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Fax: (202) 662-6291 aherman@cov.com sdingle@cov.com esaxe@cov.com jgolart@cov.com kmurray@cov.com jjensen@cov.com
81
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 02/22/17 Page 81 of 81 Document 1

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN
MILWAUKEE DIVISION

CHARLES COLLINS; TRACY ADAMS, on behalf of her minor child, D.A.; CALEB ROBERTS; STEPHEN JANSEN; GREGORY CHAMBERS; ALICIA SILVESTRE; DAVID CROWLEY; JEREMY BROWN; and JERIMIAH OLIVAR, individually and on behalf of a class of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs,
v.
THE CITY OF MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN; THE MILWAUKEE FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSION; and EDWARD FLYNN, in his official capacity as Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department,
Defendants.

No. 17-cv-234-JPS
AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF
(Violation of Rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.)

INTRODUCTION 1. This civil rights action challenges the unconstitutional, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program of the Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD” or “Department”), which violates the rights of the named Plaintiffs and a class of
1
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 1 of 91 Document 19

similarly situated individuals under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. (“Title VI”).
2. Since 2008, Defendant City of Milwaukee (“City” or “Milwaukee”), through the MPD, has engaged in an unlawful policy, practice, and custom of conducting a high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program. This program authorizes MPD officers to stop people without objective and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, and to frisk people without reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, as required under the Fourth Amendment. Under this program, the MPD also conducts pervasive stops and frisks that are motivated by race and ethnicity in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.
3. The MPD’s unconstitutional, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program was adopted as part of a so-called “broken windows” policing strategy purportedly devised to deter crime. The strategy includes blanketing certain geographic areas in which residents are predominantly people of color with “saturation patrols” by MPD officers, who conduct high-volume, suspicionless stops and frisks throughout the area. Over time, the MPD’s program has developed into a formal and informal quota system that requires patrol officers to meet numerical targets for stops on a regular basis.
2
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 2 of 91 Document 19

4. As a result, the combined number of MPD traffic and pedestrian stops skyrocketed from just 66,657 in 2007 to 196,434 in 2015—a staggering, nearly threefold increase.
5. Overwhelmingly, the victims of the MPD’s suspicionless stop-andfrisk program are Black and Latino people. Though implemented citywide, the MPD’s program has been largely concentrated in neighborhoods of color, including Milwaukee Police Districts Three, Five, and Seven, all of which are located in predominantly Black neighborhoods in the northern half of the City.
6. In addition, data reflect that Black and Latino people are more likely than white people to be stopped and frisked throughout Milwaukee, including in mixed-race and predominantly white neighborhoods. A 2011 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel analysis of MPD traffic stop data found that Black drivers citywide were seven times more likely—and that Hispanic drivers were five times more likely— to be targeted for a traffic stop than white drivers. Moreover, Black non-Hispanic people made up 72% of the targets of MPD stops conducted between 2010 and 2012 that were documented in an MPD database, even though they made up an estimated 34% of the City’s total population at the time, according to U.S. Census figures.
7. The MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has created and deepened public fear of and alienation from the MPD, particularly
3
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 3 of 91 Document 19

among Black and Latino residents. Black and Latino people throughout Milwaukee—including children—fear that they may be stopped, frisked, or otherwise treated like criminal suspects when doing nothing more than walking to a friend’s house or home from school, driving to and from the homes of loved ones, running errands, or simply taking a leisurely walk or drive through the City. No matter where they are in the City, Black and Latino people face the constant fear that they and their children may be subjected to police harassment even if they are doing nothing wrong.
8. Plaintiffs Charles Collins, Tracy Adams, on behalf of her minor child D.A., Caleb Roberts, Stephen Jansen, Gregory Chambers, Alicia Silvestre, David Crowley, Jeremy Brown, and Jerimiah Olivar are all victims of the MPD’s suspicionless stop-and-frisk program. Each Plaintiff was stopped at least once, if not multiple times, as a pedestrian or driver (or both) by an MPD officer, while engaged in routine, lawful activities, and under circumstances that did not give rise to objective and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. Each was detained by an MPD officer and subjected to questioning. In addition, D.A., Ms. Silvestre, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Olivar were frisked and/or searched under circumstances that did not give rise to objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that they were armed or dangerous. The Plaintiffs, each of whom is
4
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 4 of 91 Document 19

Black or Latino, also suffered the humiliation and indignity of being wrongfully branded as criminal suspects due to their race or ethnicity.
9. The policies, practices, and customs that establish the MPD’s suspicionless stop-and-frisk program directly and proximately caused the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights. These policies, practices, and customs are implemented and enforced by Defendant Edward Flynn, who serves as Chief of the MPD, and have been ratified and endorsed by Defendant Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission (“FPC”), the civilian body charged with MPD oversight. Defendants Flynn and FPC are Defendant Milwaukee’s final policymakers with respect to the policies, practices, and customs that establish the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stopand-frisk program.
10. Defendants Milwaukee, Flynn, and FPC are aware, and/or should be aware, that the MPD’s suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has caused, and continues to cause, routine and suspicionless stops and frisks, in violation of clearly established Fourth Amendment rights, as well as stops and frisks that are routinely based on race and ethnicity, in violation of rights clearly established under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI. Defendants nevertheless persist in implementing, enforcing, and sanctioning the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program.
5
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 5 of 91 Document 19

11. Indeed, when questioned about racial disparities in MPD traffic stops, Defendant Flynn publicly acknowledged, “Yes, of course, we are going to stop lots of innocent people. The point is, do folks understand what their role is as a cooperative citizen in having a safe environment.” Ben Poston, “Racial Gap Found in Traffic Stops in Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 4, 2011.
12. Defendants Milwaukee, Flynn, and FPC have acted with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs, and those similarly situated, by: (a) failing to properly train MPD officers; (b) inadequately monitoring and supervising MPD officers’ practices related to pedestrian and traffic stops and frisks; (c) failing to properly discipline MPD officers who engage in unconstitutional conduct; and (d) encouraging, sanctioning, and failing to rectify the MPD’s unconstitutional practices, despite being fully on notice that such violations were occurring.
13. As a result, Plaintiffs, all of whom are Black or Latino and are current residents of or frequent travelers to Milwaukee, face a substantial threat that they will again be stopped or stopped and frisked by MPD officers in violation of their constitutional and civil rights. All Plaintiffs reside in, or frequently travel to, neighborhoods that are routinely targeted for large numbers of MPD suspicionless stops. D.A., who is 17 years old, has already been subjected to at least three unlawful MPD stops, the first of which took place when he was only 11 years old
6
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 6 of 91 Document 19

and included an illegal frisk. Mr. Chambers has been stopped at least three times without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, both as a pedestrian and a motorist. Mr. Olivar has been subjected to at least two unlawful stops, once as a pedestrian and another time while riding a bicycle. The Plaintiffs’ fear of future unconstitutional MPD stops and frisks is well founded.
14. By and through their attorneys, and on behalf of a Main Class and Subclass of similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs bring this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq. to seek a declaration that the Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs violate the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI, and an injunction requiring the Defendants to immediately and permanently suspend such policies, practices, and customs.
JURISDICTION & VENUE 15. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ claims under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343(a)(3), as this action seeks redress for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and civil rights. 16. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202. 17. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) and (c) because the Eastern District of Wisconsin is the judicial district in which a
7
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 7 of 91 Document 19

substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, and in which the Defendants reside.
PARTIES Plaintiffs 18. Plaintiff Charles Collins is a 67-year-old Black man, military veteran, and long-time Milwaukee resident. Mr. Collins previously worked as a Certified Nursing Assistant at the Milwaukee County Mental Health Complex and is currently retired. 19. Plaintiff Tracy Adams is a Black woman and long-time Milwaukee resident, who brings this lawsuit on behalf of her minor child, D.A., who is a 17year-old Black child and long-time Milwaukee resident. 20. Plaintiff Caleb Roberts is a 24-year-old Black man, born and raised in Milwaukee, who recently graduated from college and lived in Milwaukee until August 2016. He currently resides in Austin, Texas, where he is pursuing a graduate degree. Mr. Roberts returns to Milwaukee frequently throughout the year to visit family and friends. He plans to apply for postgraduate employment opportunities in Milwaukee. 21. Plaintiff Stephen Jansen is a 29-year-old Black man and Milwaukee resident, who recently graduated with a master’s degree in public administration
8
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 8 of 91 Document 19

from the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. He works for Goodwill as a Job Coach, assisting individuals in seeking and maintaining employment.
22. Plaintiff Gregory Chambers is a 32-year-old Black man and Milwaukee resident. He was born and raised in Milwaukee.
23. Plaintiff Alicia Silvestre is a 60-year-old Latina woman and long-time Milwaukee resident. She has worked for the Milwaukee Public Schools (“MPS”) in various capacities for over 30 years, and currently serves as a high school secretary.
24. Plaintiff David Crowley is a 31-year-old Black man who was born and raised in Milwaukee. Mr. Crowley was recently elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly to represent Milwaukee residents in the state’s 17th Assembly District. Mr. Crowley’s legal home address is in the City of Milwaukee, although because of his duties in the State Assembly, he spends some nights during the legislative session in Madison, Wisconsin.
25. Plaintiff Jeremy Brown is a 28-year-old Black man and long-time Milwaukee resident.
26. Plaintiff Jerimiah Olivar is a 19-year old Latino teenager and longtime Milwaukee resident.
9
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 9 of 91 Document 19

Defendants 27. Defendant City of Milwaukee is a municipality of the State of Wisconsin. The City has established and maintains the MPD as a municipal agency of the City under Wisconsin law. At all relevant times, the City, acting through the MPD, was responsible for the policy, practice, supervision, implementation, and conduct of all MPD matters and was responsible for the appointment, training, supervision, and conduct of all MPD personnel. In addition, at all relevant times, the City was responsible for ensuring that all MPD personnel obey the laws of the United States. The City receives a substantial amount of federal financial assistance for law enforcement activities. 28. Defendant Edward Flynn is the Chief of Police for the City of Milwaukee, and exercises supervisory authority over all MPD officers and operations. Defendant Flynn is the City’s final policymaker with respect to law enforcement activities and the promulgation of MPD standard operating procedures, rules, and guidelines, pursuant to Wisconsin Statute § 62.50 and Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 312. 29. Defendant Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission is a municipal agency of the City under Wisconsin law. Pursuant to Wisconsin Statute § 62.50 and Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 314, the FPC oversees all aspects of MPD operations and policies, identifies systemic problems with the MPD,
10
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 10 of 91 Document 19

disciplines employees for misconduct, and evaluates MPD policies, practices, and customs relating to stops, frisks, and searches of civilians. Defendant FPC is the City’s final policymaker with respect to law enforcement oversight, training, supervision, discipline, and monitoring.
30. At all times relevant herein, Defendant Flynn and/or Defendant FPC have served and continue to serve as Defendant Milwaukee’s final policymakers for the policies, practices, and customs challenged by Plaintiffs, and are responsible for the foreseeable consequences of those policies, practices, and customs.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
A. Historical Background
31. Defendant Milwaukee has a long history of police encounters that have ended with death or injury to Black people, causing Black and Latino communities to fear the MPD. A number of these incidents have occurred since 2008.
32. Derek Williams, a Black man, died in 2011 while handcuffed in the back of an MPD vehicle after officers ignored his repeated requests for medical attention.
11
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 11 of 91 Document 19

33. In 2012, a number of MPD officers were investigated and criminally charged for conducting illegal strip searches and body cavity searches, in public, primarily of young Black men from around 2008 to 2012.
34. In 2014, an MPD officer shot and killed Dontre Hamilton, an unarmed Black man, in Milwaukee’s Red Arrow Park, after initiating a pedestrian stop of Hamilton, who was asleep on a park bench and had already been contacted and cleared by other MPD officers in the area.
35. In August 2016, Sylville Smith, a young Black man, was shot and killed by an MPD officer as he fled on foot following a traffic stop.
36. Against this historical backdrop, since 2008, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has amplified Black and Latino people’s fear of, and feeling of alienation from, the MPD.
B. Allegations of Named Plaintiffs Charles Collins 37. One evening in late spring 2014, Mr. Collins and his wife were
driving home on North 27th Street in Milwaukee following a visit to their son’s home. At around 6:30 pm, just as it was getting dark, Mr. Collins turned left from North 27th Street onto West Atkinson Street.
38. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Collins had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal
12
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 12 of 91 Document 19

conduct, an MPD patrol car pulled up behind Mr. Collins’ car, which was then on West Atkinson Street between North 28th and North 29th Streets.
39. One of the two uniformed MPD officers in the patrol car got out and approached Mr. Collins, who remained seated in the driver’s seat of his car.
40. The MPD officer asked Mr. Collins for his driver’s license, which Mr. Collins promptly provided.
41. Mr. Collins asked the officer why he had been stopped and whether there were any problems with the car.
42. The MPD officer responded, “We’re not the ticket police.” 43. When Mr. Collins opened his wallet to remove his driver’s license, the officer saw that Mr. Collins also carried a concealed weapon permit. The MPD officer asked Mr. Collins if he had a gun in the car; Mr. Collins responded that he did not. 44. The MPD officer took Mr. Collins’ driver’s license back to the patrol car, presumably to conduct a warrant search. After the officer returned, he permitted Mr. Collins and his wife to leave the scene without charging or citing them for any violation.
13
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 13 of 91 Document 19

Tracy Adams, on behalf of D.A. 45. D.A. is a Black male teenager who has been stopped without
reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct on at least three occasions by MPD officers over the last several years.
2010 46. One stop took place in or around October 2010, when D.A. was a fifth-grade student at the Milwaukee German Immersion School, which is located in Milwaukee near North 82nd Street and West Capital Drive. 47. At around noon on that day, D.A. walked several blocks from his home to the home of his friend, J.H., which was located near the school. D.A. was wearing headphones while walking. When D.A. reached J.H.’s house, he stepped onto the porch and rang the doorbell. When J.H. did not immediately come to the door, D.A. called him using the cell phone his mom had given him to use in case of emergency. 48. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that D.A. had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, an MPD officer driving a patrol car pulled into the alley next to J.H.’s house. 49. The MPD officer stepped out of the patrol car and told D.A. to “come here.” The officer walked towards D.A., put his arm around D.A.’s shoulders, and escorted D.A. from the porch to the patrol car. The officer immediately began
14
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 14 of 91 Document 19

questioning D.A. in an accusatory manner and forcibly removed D.A.’s phone from his hand.
50. The officer asked D.A. what he was doing at that location. D.A. explained that he was visiting a friend.
51. The officer patted D.A. down from his chest to his legs, and patted down each arm individually. The officer instructed D.A. to put his hands on the hood of the patrol car and D.A. complied.
52. J.H.’s father, who is white, came out of the house shortly thereafter, and asked the officer what was going on and why D.A. was being searched when “he’s a little kid.” He explained to the officer that D.A. and his son, J.H., were going to hang out in J.H.’s room.
53. The MPD officer told J.H.’s father that he was making sure that nothing was wrong. The MPD officer asserted that he was trying to be cautious.
54. The MPD officer then left without charging or citing D.A. for any violation.
55. When D.A.’s mother, Tracy Adams, learned about this incident, she was upset and frustrated. Ms. Adams called the MPD’s District Seven station and spoke to a sergeant.
15
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 15 of 91 Document 19

56. Ms. Adams asked why her son—who was just a child—had been stopped and frisked by the police for no reason. The sergeant explained that MPD officers have “a policy to stop young men walking through alleys.”
57. Ms. Adams was disturbed by the sergeant’s response. She had worked for Milwaukee Public Schools for more than 25 years and had never heard of such a policy or practice, particularly as it relates to children. Ms. Adams told the officer that the policy described did not sound right to her and that she would like to file a complaint.
58. The officer informed Ms. Adams that she had a right to file a complaint, and explained that Ms. Adams had to come to the police station in District Seven to pick up and complete the relevant forms, so that the MPD could look into the complaint and forward it to the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission to determine if “there was something.”
59. Ms. Adams took the initial steps to file a formal complaint, but ultimately decided not to do so, based upon the lack of cooperation and guidance from MPD officials that she had already encountered by phone and in person.
60. Upon information and belief, the officer who conducted the unlawful stop was never disciplined, reprimanded, or otherwise held accountable for his actions.
16
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 16 of 91 Document 19

2013 61. D.A. was again stopped and searched by MPD officers in 2013, when he was a seventh-grade student at the Milwaukee School of Languages, located on West Burleigh Street in Milwaukee. 62. Following school that day, D.A. and three classmates stopped briefly at the home of one of the boys, B.C., which was located a few blocks from the school. While waiting on the porch of B.C.’s home, D.A. noticed a marked MPD vehicle make a U-turn and park on the curb facing B.C.’s house. 63. Shortly after leaving B.C.’s house, D.A. and his classmate, E.W., walked towards D.A.’s house, taking a shortcut through a nearby alley. 64. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that D.A. had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, an MPD patrol car pulled up next to D.A. and E.W. Upon coming to a stop, two officers got out of the car and approached D.A. and E.W. 65. The officers asked D.A. and E.W. to remove their hands from their coat pockets because they “might have weapons.” 66. The officers asked D.A. and E.W. what they were doing. D.A. explained that they were walking to his house.
17
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 17 of 91 Document 19

67. One officer asked D.A. and E.W. for identification. The boys gave their names, which one of the officers wrote down, but they were too young to have identification cards.
68. One officer returned to the MPD patrol car, presumably to check the boys’ names for arrest warrants. The other officer instructed D.A. and E.W. to sit on the hood of the patrol car.
69. At one point, D.A. and E.W. asked if they could leave, but one of the MPD officers told them to wait so that the officers could verify their identity.
70. The officer who conducted the identification check returned to where D.A. and E.W. were waiting. He asked D.A. what was in his backpack. D.A. explained that his backpack contained homework.
71. One officer warned the boys not to walk through alleys because it “makes you look suspicious.”
72. The officers then drove away without charging or citing D.A. or E.W. with any violation.
73. After the officers let them go, D.A. and E.W. continued walking to D.A.’s house.
74. B.C. later called D.A. to tell him that a police officer had come to his house to ask him if he knew D.A. and E.W.
18
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 18 of 91 Document 19

2016 75. D.A. was also stopped by an MPD officer during September or October 2016, when he was walking alone on his way to the bus stop early in the morning to attend high school. 76. At approximately 9 a.m., D.A. was walking along West Nash Street in Milwaukee. He then crossed onto the east side of North 96th Street, next to the schoolyard fence of the Ninety-Fifth Street School. Almost immediately, an MPD officer on a motorcycle drove up West Nash Street and pulled up next to him. 77. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that D.A. had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, the MPD officer stopped D.A. and asked whether he lived in the area. The officer mentioned a report of a stolen car. D.A. responded that he did not know anything about a stolen car. D.A. did not believe that he was free to end the encounter and leave the scene. 78. After a few more minutes of questioning, the officer rode away without charging or citing D.A. for any violation, and D.A. continued on his way to the bus stop.
Caleb Roberts 79. On July 5, 2011, Mr. Roberts, who was then an 18-year-old college student, left a Summerfest concert in Milwaukee with friends and relatives by car
19
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 19 of 91 Document 19

sometime between 11:30 p.m. and 12:30 a.m. Mr. Roberts was driving a black minivan, with slightly tinted back side windows, and was accompanied by five passengers.
80. After dropping one friend off at North 71st Street and West Center Street, Mr. Roberts drove to North 60th Street and West Hampton Avenue to drop off his cousin, J.B.
81. Driving on North 60th Street, Mr. Roberts turned left at a stoplight onto West Hampton Avenue, less than a block from J.B.’s home, and saw two MPD patrol cars driving in the opposite direction.
82. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Roberts or any of the minivan passengers had engaged in, or were about to engage in, criminal conduct, the two MPD patrol cars made a U-turn, activated their emergency lights, and directed Mr. Roberts to pull over just as he approached the front of J.B.’s house.
83. Four uniformed officers emerged from the MPD patrol cars, two from each vehicle, and descended upon the minivan. Two officers approached each side of Mr. Roberts’ minivan, raised their flashlights, and drew their guns.
84. Mr. Roberts had already lowered the window of the driver’s side door before the officers approached. Upon reaching the minivan, one of the officers
20
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 20 of 91 Document 19

opened the driver’s side door, while the other officers directed the passengers to open the remaining three doors of the minivan.
85. The MPD officer positioned at the driver’s side door told Mr. Roberts to put his hands on the steering wheel and to show his driver’s license. Mr. Roberts complied. The officers also obtained identification cards from the other three male passengers (but not from the sole female passenger).
86. The officers asked Mr. Roberts and the passengers about where they were coming from and whether there were weapons or alcohol in the vehicle. Mr. Roberts explained that they were on their way home from the Summerfest concert and that there were no weapons or alcohol in the minivan.
87. At least one officer returned to the patrol car, presumably to run the minivan’s license plate number and the identification cards obtained for warrants.
88. One MPD officer, who remained at the minivan, directed J.B. to get out of the minivan. Once J.B. exited the minivan, he was frisked, handcuffed, and made to sit on the curb on West Hampton Avenue, directly in front of his own home.
89. Mr. Roberts, J.B., and another passenger, D.L., each asked one of the MPD officers to provide the reason for the traffic stop. One officer told Mr. Roberts that the vehicle’s registration was faulty. A second officer told J.B. that J.B. had appeared to be reaching for something on the floor or under the seat. A
21
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 21 of 91 Document 19

third officer told D.L. that J.B., who had been seated in the middle seat of the last row in the minivan, had not been wearing a seatbelt before they were pulled over, even though the back seat of the minivan is not visible from the outside because of the tinted side rear windows.
90. After conducting the warrant check, the MPD officers returned the identification cards to Mr. Roberts and the other passengers, and permitted them to leave without being charged or cited for any violations.
Stephen Jansen 91. At around 12:30 a.m. on May 14, 2016, Mr. Jansen left the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee campus, where he was a graduate student obtaining a master’s degree in public administration, to return home after studying for a final exam. Mr. Jansen walked west on East Locust Street, then south on North Humboldt Boulevard, keeping to the sidewalk on the east side of the street. 92. When Mr. Jansen approached the corner of North Humboldt Street and East Center Street, two MPD officers on bicycles rode swiftly past Mr. Jansen going in the same direction. 93. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Jansen had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, the MPD officers looked at Mr. Jansen, turned around and rode back in his direction. They stopped at the northeast corner of the intersection of North
22
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 22 of 91 Document 19

Humboldt Street and East Clarke Street, where they began circling their bicycles and talking to each other. Mr. Jansen continued to walk south on North Humboldt Boulevard, towards the officers.
94. As Mr. Jansen started to cross East Clarke Street, one of the MPD officers, whom Mr. Jansen later learned was named Officer Macrae, rode towards him.
95. Officer Macrae appeared to call out to him, but Mr. Jansen could not hear the officer well because he was wearing earbuds and listening to music.
96. Mr. Jansen stopped and removed his earbuds. Officer Macrae stated, “We didn’t smell any marijuana until we passed you. Do you have any weed on you?”
97. Mr. Jansen did not believe that he could continue walking without responding to Officer Macrae. He responded that he did not have any marijuana.
98. Officer Macrae then asked if Mr. Jansen if he had anything in his backpack or anything “on him.”
99. Mr. Jansen again felt that he could not leave the scene without answering the question. He responded, “No. I don’t smoke marijuana. Anything else?” Officer Macrae smirked and replied, “No.”
100. The officers then left the scene without charging or citing Mr. Jansen for any violation, and he continued to walk home.
23
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 23 of 91 Document 19

101. Mr. Jansen was upset following his interaction with the MPD officers and felt that he had been wrongfully targeted because of his race.
102. Mr. Jansen told his girlfriend about the encounter, and called MPD’s District Five station to complain. He spoke to an officer, and was then transferred to an MPD Supervisor who introduced himself as “Jake.”
103. Mr. Jansen complained that two MPD officers had stopped and questioned him without articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. During this conversation, Mr. Jansen learned that Officer Macrae was one of the two officers involved in the stop.
104. Upon information and belief, the May 14, 2016 stop was not investigated by MPD, Defendant FPC, or any other oversight authority.
Gregory Chambers 105. Mr. Chambers is a young Black man who has been stopped without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct by MPD officers on at least three occasions.
2014 106. At approximately 6:00 a.m., in or around January or February 2014, Mr. Chambers was driving home after dropping his wife off at work. Before reaching home, Mr. Chambers decided to refuel at a gas station located at Miller Park Way and Greenfield Avenue in Milwaukee.
24
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 24 of 91 Document 19

107. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Chambers had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, an MPD patrol car tailed Mr. Chambers down Miller Park Way and followed him as he made a legal U-turn and pulled into the gas station. When Mr. Chambers pulled up to the first gas pump, the patrol car pulled up directly behind Mr. Chambers’ car. As Mr. Chambers got out of his car, the patrol car’s siren was activated. Mr. Chambers stopped abruptly and stood by the gas pump.
108. One officer commented on Mr. Chambers’ “nice car” and asked whether it belonged to him. Mr. Chambers responded that it was his wife’s car and that he had just dropped her off at work.
109. The two MPD officers got out of the patrol car and approached Mr. Chambers. The officer who had commented on Mr. Chambers’ car asked to see his driver’s license, which Mr. Chambers provided.
110. The officer took Mr. Chambers’ license back to the patrol car and got inside, where he presumably checked for warrants. The second officer stood by the hood of the patrol car and stared directly at Mr. Chambers for approximately ten minutes without uttering a word.
111. When nothing problematic was found, the officers returned Mr. Chambers’ driver’s license. The officers again asked Mr. Chambers whether the
25
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 25 of 91 Document 19

car belonged to him. Mr. Chambers stated that if he was not being detained, he would like to go.
112. The officers permitted Mr. Chambers to leave the scene without charging or citing him for any violation.
2015 113. In August 2015, Mr. Chambers was driving to his home in Milwaukee in a beige 2011 Chevy Malibu, which he had purchased about a week earlier. At the time, the car was still equipped with temporary dealer plates, while Mr. Chambers waited for the permanent license plates to arrive in the mail. 114. Mr. Chambers was driving down South 27th Street and turned onto West Mitchell Street. As Mr. Chambers drove east and reached South 13th Street, near West Forest Home Avenue, he noticed that an MPD patrol car was following him. 115. Several minutes later, as Mr. Chambers pulled up in front of his apartment building at West Mitchell Street and South 6th Street, the officers activated their car siren. 116. Two MPD officers approached Mr. Chambers’ car, one on each side of the vehicle. 117. The MPD officer on the driver’s side told Mr. Chambers that the dealer tag on the car did not match the car registration that they had on file. He
26
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 26 of 91 Document 19

asked to take down Mr. Chambers’ vehicle identification number, which Mr. Chambers permitted. The officer also asked Mr. Chambers for his driver’s license, which Mr. Chambers provided, and returned to the patrol car, presumably to conduct a check for any outstanding warrants.
118. Meanwhile, the MPD officer on the passenger side peered into Mr. Chambers’ car and stared at him, while keeping his hand on his gun. The gun was in its holster, but the holster was unsnapped. Eventually, the officer snapped the strap closed, securing the gun in the holster.
119. After several minutes, the other officer returned to Mr. Chambers’ car. Following another series of questions, the officers eventually told Mr. Chambers that he was free to go.
120. The officers watched Mr. Chambers get out of his car and enter his apartment building before leaving the scene. They did not charge or cite him with any violation.
2016 121. On a Sunday evening in March 2016, after driving into downtown Milwaukee, Mr. Chambers parked his car and went for a walk on North Water Street. 122. At approximately 9:00 p.m., as Mr. Chambers was returning to his car, an MPD patrol car activated its emergency lights and pulled up at the curb
27
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 27 of 91 Document 19

alongside him. Mr. Chambers had been walking on the sidewalk on the west side of the street, next to a large fountain near the entrance to the Marcus Center for the Performing Arts.
123. Two MPD officers got out of the car and approached Mr. Chambers. They asked what he was doing. Mr. Chambers responded that he was taking a walk. The officers asked Mr. Chambers for his identification, which he provided.
124. The officers then asked Mr. Chambers for his age. When Mr. Chambers stated that he was 31 years old, the officers replied that they did not believe him.
125. One officer took Mr. Chambers’ driver’s license to the patrol car, while the second officer stayed with Mr. Chambers. When nothing problematic was found, the first officer returned Mr. Chambers’ driver’s license and permitted Mr. Chambers to leave the scene without charging or citing him for any violation.
Alicia Silvestre 126. One evening in or around 2015, Ms. Silvestre dropped off some food for her son, who lived on South Aldrich Street in Milwaukee at the time. She left her son’s home by car at around 10 p.m. Her then four-year-old granddaughter was in the back seat. 127. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Ms. Silvestre had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal
28
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 28 of 91 Document 19

conduct, MPD officers in a patrol car activated the car’s emergency lights and pulled up behind Ms. Silvestre’s car just after she turned left from East Homer Street onto South Kinnickinnic Avenue.
128. Two MPD officers approached Ms. Silvestre’s car on either side. The officer on the driver’s side asked Ms. Silvestre for her driver’s license. Ms. Silvestre responded that she had accidentally left it at home in her purse.
129. The officer then aggressively questioned Ms. Silvestre in a threatening manner, which made Ms. Silvestre extremely nervous. He asked Ms. Silvestre how old she was, and expressed disbelief when Ms. Silvestre fumbled her response before providing the correct answer.
130. The officer asked Ms. Silvestre why she was nervous. Ms. Silvestre explained that he was making her feel nervous.
131. The officer then asked if he would find “anything” if he searched Ms. Silvestre’s car. Ms. Silvestre responded that the officer would not find anything. The officer then ordered Ms. Silvestre out of the car, so that they could search her person. She stood up and said “Search me,” but the officer did not do so. Instead, he leaned into the car, over the driver’s seat, and shined a flashlight into the interior.
132. Ms. Silvestre’s granddaughter remained in the back seat, crying.
29
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 29 of 91 Document 19

133. The officer instructed Ms. Silvestre to get back into her car, and informed her that they were going to follow her home to confirm that she had a valid driver’s license. The officer told Ms. Silvestre that after arriving at her home, she should wait for permission to get out of her car and should “not run.”
134. Ms. Silvestre drove home with the MPD officers following behind her in the patrol car.
135. When Ms. Silvestre arrived at home, she waited in her car as instructed. An officer opened the driver’s side door and let Ms. Silvestre out of the car. Ms. Silvestre opened the rear passenger door to let her granddaughter out of the back seat of the car.
136. As they walked towards the house, the MPD officer asked Ms. Silvestre where her driver’s license was located inside of the house. Ms. Silvestre explained that she had left her purse on the dining room table and that she kept her driver’s license in an outside pocket of the purse.
137. Once at Ms. Silvestre’s front door, the two MPD officers followed Ms. Silvestre into the house without asking her permission. As Ms. Silvestre walked towards the dining table to get her purse, the same MPD officer told her to stop, grabbed the purse himself, unzipped the main compartment, and dumped the contents of the bag onto the dining table without asking permission.
30
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 30 of 91 Document 19

138. Ms. Silvestre was frightened by this intrusive behavior. She began crying. Her granddaughter, whom Ms. Silvestre had sent to an adjacent room, continued to cry as well. Ms. Silvestre asked the officer why he was treating her this way.
139. The MPD officer asked Ms. Silvestre if she knew that she had been in an area known for drugs and produced a small piece of foil with burn marks, which he claimed to have found in her car, and which Ms. Silvestre had never seen before. The officer said it was heroin and the reason why he had been treating her aggressively.
140. Ms. Silvestre responded that she did not know anything about heroin. 141. Both MPD officers left without charging or citing Ms. Silvestre for any violation. Neither officer explained why she had been stopped and searched in the first instance. 142. The next day, Ms. Silvestre called MPD’s District Six station to file a complaint. An officer told her that she had been stopped because she had failed to stop at a traffic light. There is no traffic light, however, at the intersection on South Kinnickinnic Avenue where the MPD officers initially stopped Ms. Silvestre. 143. Ms. Silvestre also filled out a written Citizen Complaint Form soon after the incident and submitted it to the FPC. Upon information and belief, the
31
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 31 of 91 Document 19

officers who conducted the unlawful stop, car search, and home entry were never disciplined, reprimanded, or otherwise held accountable for their actions.
David Crowley 144. At around 10 p.m. one evening during the late summer or early fall of 2012 or 2013, Plaintiff Crowley and his godbrother, D.C., were walking south on North 10th Street in Milwaukee, between West Concordia Avenue and West Ring Street, when they heard gun shots. 145. Mr. Crowley and D.C. turned right onto West Ring Street, going west, away from the sound of the gun shots, then headed south again on North 11th Street, in order to distance themselves further from the direction from which they heard the shots. Eventually, they walked through a field near the intersection of 11th and Ring, towards the alley between North 11th and North 10th Streets and facing the nearby LaFollette School. 146. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Crowley or D.C. had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, two MPD officers who were driving through the alley pulled up to Mr. Crowley and D.C., flashed the patrol car’s white lights on them, jumped out of the car with guns drawn, and shouted for them to put their hands up “right now.” 147. Mr. Crowley and D.C. were terrified and immediately put their hands in the air.
32
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 32 of 91 Document 19

148. One MPD officer asked “Where you guys coming from?” Without waiting for a response and without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Crowley or D.C. were armed and dangerous, the officers immediately approached Mr. Crowley and D.C., and frisked them both, patting them down and searching their pants pockets. After taking Mr. Crowley’s and D.C.’s wallets out of their pockets, the officers pulled out their identification cards. The officers did not ask for identification or consent to search prior to frisking and searching Mr. Crowley and D.C.
149. As the officers searched Mr. Crowley and D.C., one of the officers asked if they had thrown a gun into the field, and whether they had heard gun shots. Mr. Crowley responded that they had heard the shots and walked down North 11th Street to avoid trouble.
150. The MPD officers then returned Mr. Crowley’s and D.C.’s identification and permitted them to leave without charging or citing them for any violation.
Jeremy Brown 151. One morning in March or April 2012, Mr. Brown was spending time with his partner, S.O., their children, and other family members at her home, when he decided to go to a local food market to purchase cigarettes. Mr. Brown left for the store at around 11 a.m. while S.O. stayed at home with the children.
33
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 33 of 91 Document 19

152. After purchasing the cigarettes, Mr. Brown walked back to S.O.’s home along North 25th Street. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Brown had engaged in, or was about to engage in, criminal conduct, an unmarked MPD vehicle pulled up beside him. The officer driving the vehicle, who was in uniform at the time, rolled down a window and asked Mr. Brown, “Who are you?”
153. Mr. Brown was confused by the question. He responded, “What do you mean, who am I?” The officer again asked, “Who are you?” Mr. Brown remained confused as to why the officer was asking for his name. He replied, “Why do you want to know who I am?”
154. The officer heatedly replied, “I know everyone around here except you. You’re a new face. I need to know who you are.” The officer pulled his vehicle into a driveway directly in front of Mr. Brown, cutting off his path to S.O.’s home.
155. The officer exited the vehicle and directed Mr. Brown to stand against an adjacent fence. The officer demanded Mr. Brown’s identification, instructed him to drop the cigarettes in his hand, and asked what he was carrying. Mr. Brown complied with the officer’s instructions and responded that he was not carrying anything.
34
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 34 of 91 Document 19

156. While the officer detained and questioned Mr. Brown on North 25th Street, S.O. became worried that it was taking Mr. Brown a long time to return after what was supposed to be a quick trip to the store. S.O. left her children with her mother and another family member on the porch of her home and walked down to where the officer was detaining Mr. Brown.
157. When S.O. arrived, she asked the officer why he had stopped Mr. Brown. The officer replied, “He’s a new face. I know everyone else here. I need to get to know him.”
158. When S.O. then asked Mr. Brown why he was being detained, the officer became verbally abusive towards her. The officer called her “Black bitch,” and told her, “Mind your own business, bitch.”
159. A second MPD officer arrived at the scene in a police vehicle and observed the first officer as he continued to speak derogatorily towards S.O.
160. The first officer handcuffed Mr. Brown and placed him in the second officer’s vehicle. The first officer asked S.O., “How does it feel to see your man going to jail?”
161. S.O.’s mother, who had remained with the children on the porch of S.O.’s home, became concerned that S.O. had been gone for some time. She left the children on the porch with another family member, and walked over to where MPD officers were detaining Mr. Brown and verbally harassing S.O.
35
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 35 of 91 Document 19

162. After S.O.’s mother arrived, S.O. and her mother left the MPD officers and returned to S.O.’s home.
163. As they arrived at S.O.’s home, the first officer drove by in his vehicle and shouted out of his window at S.O. The officer threatened S.O. that he would report her to Milwaukee Child Protective Services because she had left her kids on the porch alone.
164. The second officer transported Mr. Brown to MPD’s District Five station, where he was left in a room for several hours. The first officer eventually arrived and released Mr. Brown after issuing him a $185 ticket for disorderly conduct.
165. As a result of his hours-long detention, Mr. Brown almost missed work.
166. Mr. Brown appeared in Milwaukee Municipal Court on May 8, 2012, for a hearing concerning the disorderly conduct charge. When he arrived in court, however, he learned that the officer who ticketed him had not filed any citation with the court. Mr. Brown contacted the court several times over the next two years to inquire about the citation. On each occasion, Mr. Brown was informed that no such citation was ever filed.
36
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 36 of 91 Document 19

Jerimiah Olivar 167. Mr. Olivar is a Latino teenager who has been stopped without reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct on at least two occasions by MPD officers over the last several years.
2015 168. One stop took place in July or August 2015, when Mr. Olivar was only 17 years old. 169. At around 2 p.m. on that day, Mr. Olivar and his friend, L., who is Black, were riding their bicycles eastward on West National Avenue towards South 16th Street in order to meet up with another friend. At first, they rode in the designated bicycle lane, but later moved to the sidewalk because Mr. Olivar had been told, including by police officers, that bicycles belonged on the sidewalk. 170. As Mr. Olivar and L. rode their bicycles eastward on West National Avenue, they saw two officers in an MPD van driving towards them on the opposite side of the street. After the MPD van passed Mr. Olivar and L., Mr. Olivar heard the van make a U-turn. 171. The MPD van drove past Mr. Olivar and L. and hastily pulled over to the right side of the road, parking the van in front of them at an angle to the curb. 172. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Oliver or L. had engaged in, or were about to engage in,
37
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 37 of 91 Document 19

criminal conduct, two MPD officers exited the van and approached them on the sidewalk. As the officers approached head-on, Mr. Olivar and L. stopped cycling and stood facing the officers and straddling their bicycles. One officer stood in front of Mr. Olivar’s bicycle and placed his hands on the handlebars. The other officer did the same to L. Mr. Olivar did not believe that he was free to leave.
173. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Olivar or L. were armed and dangerous, both officers gestured to Mr. Olivar and L. to raise their arms. When Mr. Olivar and L. complied, the officers immediately proceeded to frisk them.
174. The officer who frisked Mr. Olivar started by checking the waist band of Mr. Olivar’s pants and proceeded to pat down his front and back pockets, his legs down to the ankle, and the sleeves of his shirt.
175. The second officer frisked L. and asked, “What are you guys doing over here?” Mr. Olivar responded, “Riding to a friend’s house.”
176. The same officer replied, “There was just a robbery in the neighborhood. We are just checking around.” Mr. Olivar responded, “We don’t know anything about that.”
177. The officer frisking L. reached into the small front pocket of L.’s pants and pulled out a multi-tool. That officer asked, “What are you doing with this?” L. responded that he uses the tool from time to time.
38
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 38 of 91 Document 19

178. The same officer who had been questioning the young men asked them for their identification. Mr. Olivar and L. complied by providing their identification cards. The officer took the cards, instructed Mr. Olivar and L. to sit on the curb, and returned to the police van, presumably to conduct a warrant check. Mr. Olivar and L. put their bicycles down on the sidewalk and sat on the curb, while the other officer watched them.
179. The officer who had conducted the warrant check returned Mr. Olivar his identification card and said, “You’re in the clear to go.” The same officer returned L. his identification card, and told him that he had several unpaid tickets that he should take care of.
180. L. asked for his multi-tool back. The officer who had confiscated it refused to return it.
181. The officers permitted Mr. Olivar and L. to leave the scene without charging or citing them for any violation.
2016 182. At around 2 p.m. one afternoon in the late winter or early spring of 2016, Mr. Olivar and L. were walking westward on West Lapham Boulevard on their way to a friend’s house when an MPD vehicle passed them and pulled over to the right side of the road in front of them. When the vehicle pulled over, Mr. Olivar
39
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 39 of 91 Document 19

and L. were on the north sidewalk on West Lapham Boulevard, close to South Division High School.
183. Without any basis to formulate objective and articulable reasonable suspicion that Mr. Olivar or L. had engaged in, or were about to engage in, criminal conduct, when Mr. Olivar and L. reached the MPD vehicle, an officer rolled down the passenger-side window and asked, “What’s your business in the area?”
184. Mr. Olivar felt that he had to answer the officer’s question and could not continue on his way. He responded, “We are going to a friend’s house.”
185. The officer stated, “There have been a lot of robberies around here. Do you know anything about that?”
186. Mr. Olivar responded that they did not. 187. The officers permitted Mr. Olivar and L. to leave the scene without charging or citing them for any violation. C. The MPD’s High-Volume, Suspicionless Stop-and-Frisk Program 188. The named Plaintiffs’ experiences of being stopped, frisked, and searched by MPD officers without legal justification are far from isolated incidents. They are the result of the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-andfrisk program, which violates both the Fourth Amendment prohibition on
40
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 40 of 91 Document 19

unreasonable searches and seizures and the prohibition against racial and ethnic profiling under the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
189. Upon assuming control of the MPD in 2008, Defendant Flynn ushered in a “broken windows policing” strategy involving “proactive policing” and socalled “saturation patrols.” As part of this strategy, Defendant Flynn directs MPD officers to increase the number of traffic and pedestrian stops, also known as “field interviews” and “field contacts,” throughout the City, and particularly in neighborhoods that are economically depressed and/or perceived as suffering from social disorder. Defendant Flynn has publicly suggested that saturating these neighborhoods with police and ramping up the number of stops made by MPD officers will disrupt and deter crime, whether or not the stops lead to arrest or prosecution.
190. Defendant Flynn has acknowledged that a significant number of the stops conducted by MPD officers are of law-abiding individuals. When questioned about this phenomenon, Defendant Flynn stated, “Yes, of course we are going to stop lots of innocent people.” Ben Poston, “Racial Gap Found in Traffic Stops in Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 4, 2011.
191. The result is the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program, which is predicated on a policy, practice, and custom of authorizing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to conduct large numbers of traffic and
41
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 41 of 91 Document 19

pedestrian stops that are unsupported by objective and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity.
192. The MPD’s suspicionless stop-and-frisk program also includes a policy, practice, and custom of authorizing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to escalate stops to include frisks that are unsupported by reasonable suspicion that an individual is armed and dangerous.
Citywide Impact of the MPD’s Suspicionless Stop-and-Frisk Program 193. The MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has led to a dramatic increase in MPD traffic and pedestrian stops citywide. The combined number of MPD traffic and pedestrian stops multiplied nearly threefold from just 66,657 in 2007 to 196,434 in 2015. 194. The fact that MPD conducted 196,434 traffic and pedestrian stops in 2015 alone is, in and of itself, staggering in light of the City’s 2015 population of 599,498, according to U.S. Census figures. 195. According to the MPD’s 2015 Annual Report, MPD officers conducted 149,604 traffic stops and 46,830 subject (pedestrian) stops in 2015, compared to 52,399 traffic stops and 14,258 subject stops in 2007. These figures may even underrepresent the extent to which the City’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has increased police stops in Milwaukee because MPD officers fail to document every traffic and pedestrian stop conducted.
42
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 42 of 91 Document 19

196. Even though the combined number of pedestrian and traffic stops has decreased slightly in recent years, that number has remained consistently high since 2009, based on data presented in the MPD’s 2015 Annual Report.
197. Upon information and belief, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program continues to serve as the driving force behind the large numbers of traffic and pedestrian stops citywide.
198. In 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin expressed concern that MPD officers routinely conduct suspicionless stops in the context of a lawsuit resulting in a jury verdict finding that officers lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct a stop and frisk. The Court order upheld the jury verdict and observed: “[I]t is apparent that MPD has opted to continue the sort of illegal stops that Mr. Hardy was subject to. MPD Chief Edward Flynn has made clear that one of his prerogatives is encouraging large amounts of pedestrian stops, regardless of the reasons. In criticizing Floyd v. City of New York, the Southern District of New York case finding the New York Police Department’s stop-andfrisk tactics illegal, Chief Flynn stated, ‘That’s what worries us about what’s happening in New York. It would be a shame if some people decided to put us back in our cars just answering calls and ceding the streets to thugs.’” Order, Hardy v. City of Milwaukee, 88 F. Supp.3d 852, 881 at n.19 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 27, 2015) (citing Heather MacDonald, “How to Increase the Crime Rate Nationwide,”
43
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 43 of 91 Document 19

The Wall Street Journal (Jun. 11, 2013)) (“Hardy order”). The Court noted that “even the most routine police stop has the possibility of escalating quickly” and that “police stops of citizens should not be taken lightly.” Id. at 881.
The MPD’s Suspicionless Stop-and-Frisk Program Targets Black and Latino People 199. The MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program is also predicated on a policy, practice, and custom of authorizing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to base stops and frisks on race and ethnicity, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. 200. In 2011, a report by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel (“MJS Report”) analyzed data provided by the MPD to the Wisconsin Office of Justice Assistance on MPD traffic stops conducted from January 2011 to April 2011. The MJS Report found that Black drivers throughout Milwaukee were seven times more likely to be stopped by MPD officers than white drivers, and that Hispanic drivers were five times more likely to be stopped than white drivers. See Ben Poston, “Racial Gaps Found in Traffic Stops in Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 4, 2011. 201. The MJS Report also found that Black drivers were twice as likely as white drivers to have their cars searched after the initiation of a stop, even though the rate at which searches resulted in the seizure of contraband was comparable for Black and white drivers.
44
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 44 of 91 Document 19

202. When questioned about the MJS Report findings, Defendant Flynn publicly stated that such racial disparities are to be expected. Defendant Flynn told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, “If we are going to heavily engage with those communities that are both victimized and from whence a significant majority of our offenders come, we are going to generate disparities because of where we’re physically located.” Defendant Flynn also stated, “The disparities we are generating, we believe, are well within what we would expect given the victimization data and the offender data.”
203. MPD’s targeting of Black and Latino drivers for stops is not limited, however, to discrete geographic areas in which the MPD purports to engage with Black and Latino communities based on “victimization data” and “offender data.” In fact, the MJS Report found that the greatest racial discrepancies in traffic stops occurred in Milwaukee Police Districts One and Six, which have predominantly white populations. See Ben Poston, “Racial Gaps Found in Traffic Stops in Milwaukee,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Dec. 4, 2011. In predominantly white District One, which encompasses downtown and the east side of Milwaukee, Black drivers were stopped 12.6 times as often as white drivers, and Hispanic drivers were stopped four times as often as white drivers. In addition, Black drivers were searched nearly five times as often as white drivers in District One.
45
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 45 of 91 Document 19

204. Over the last several years, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin and other local civil rights groups have received numerous letters, emails, phone calls, and social media posts from Black and Latino people complaining that they were subjected to stops, frisks, and searches that were legally unsupported and motivated by race and ethnicity. At town halls organized by civil rights groups, Black and Latino Milwaukee residents have expressed that they feel threatened, rather than protected, by the MPD. These feelings of fear and mistrust are the result, in part, of being unlawfully targeted for police stops and frisks—sometimes on multiple occasions.
205. In December 2015, following the killing of Dontre Hamilton, the U.S. Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Services (“COPS”) Office commenced a Collaborative Reform Initiative for Technical Assistance of the Department to assess MPD policies and practices pertaining to communityoriented policing, use of force, deadly force, and accountability, among other things. At a January 2016 COPS town hall meeting, numerous Milwaukee residents, including Black and Latino people, expressed concern that MPD officers engage in suspicionless stops and racial and ethnic profiling.
46
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 46 of 91 Document 19

D. Elements of the MPD’s Policy, Practice, and Custom of Conducting Police Stops and Frisks Without Reasonable Suspicion and/or Impermissibly Motivated by Race and Ethnicity
206. The MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program involves at least three component policies, practices, and customs of the Defendants that directly and proximately lead to violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI.
Pervasive Stops and Frisks in Expansive, So-Called “High-Crime” Areas 207. First, Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and custom of directing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to aggressively use traffic and pedestrian stops and frisks by conducting the aforementioned “saturation patrols” in so-called “high-crime areas.” 208. These “high-crime areas” may include discrete locations designated by MPD as “hot spots” where crime has previously been reported. But, as noted above, the targeted areas expand far beyond the boundaries of any discrete crime “hot spots” to engulf large swaths of Milwaukee Police Districts Three, Five, and Seven, which are all located in the northern half of the City, in largely Black neighborhoods. 209. While purportedly motivated by a desire to disrupt and deter crime, there is no evidence that the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk
47
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 47 of 91 Document 19

program achieves these goals or adequately responds to specific crime complaints by residents of targeted areas.
210. Defendant Flynn addressed the Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of directing and encouraging MPD patrol officers to aggressively use traffic and pedestrian stops and frisks in designated areas in a 2011 video on Milwaukee Police Traffic Stops (“2011 Traffic Stops Video”). Videotape: Milwaukee Police Traffic Stops (Milwaukee Police Department, Nov. 21, 2011), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8q8WONzFI. Defendant Flynn asserted: “We needed this department to be visible and we needed it to be active. We started to take more calls over the phone, and started to create more foot patrols, and more bicycle patrols and time for officers to do directed patrol missions, which means, that hot spot over there, I want you to stop cars and talk to people. I want you to disrupt the environment, because the cops are here now.”
211. The 2014 testimony of MPD officer Jacob Knight in a federal lawsuit challenging an MPD strip search demonstrates the Defendants’ directive to MPD patrol officers to conduct large numbers of stops as part of saturation patrols targeted at so-called “high-crime” areas: “My take on what Compstat was . . . that they wanted dots on a map to show that police work was being done. Like say there’s a violent—you know, say there’s a shooting in a specific area. Compstat wanted dots on a map to say that crime is being taken care of. So they wanted
48
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 48 of 91 Document 19

traffic stops and [field interview] stops in that area so they could say that something was being done about it.” Deposition of Jacob Knight, Bohannon v. City of Milwaukee, No. 2:13-cv-01224-JPS (E.D. Wis., Aug. 11, 2014), ECF. No. 65-5. Officer Knight explained that “dots on a map” referred to field interviews. When asked whether these field interviews involved pat-downs or searches, the officer responded that “it would depend” but “yes, the more stops you make, the likelihood of conducting a pat down or search of some nature would increase, yes.”
212. Compstat, which is short for “computer statistics,” is the term applied to a combination of data-driven computer programs and management practices used by police departments to track crime statistics and craft corresponding policing strategies.
Formal and Informal Stop Quotas 213. Second, Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and custom of pressuring MPD patrol officers to conduct suspicionless stops and frisks by using productivity measures related to the number of stops and by sanctioning officers who fail to meet formal and informal stop quotas. 214. The number of stops conducted by each officer, squad, and unit are tracked and evaluated at weekly Compstat meetings where commanders and patrol officers are questioned about their statistics by supervisors, including Defendant Flynn.
49
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 49 of 91 Document 19

215. MPD officers have a strong incentive to stop Milwaukee residents for whom there is no objective and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity because Compstat meetings and performance metrics make clear that officer productivity is measured in part by the number of stops conducted, rather than by ensuring that all stops and frisks are legally supported.
216. According to a 2013 report of the U.S. Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Assistance and the Police Executive Research Forum (“PERF Report”), MPD holds regular Compstat meetings that involve a comparison of “individual officer activity (including . . . traffic and subject stops) with districtwide and agency-wide activity. This information is available during the Compstat meetings and on the agency’s intranet, where all officers can view it.” According to the PERF Report, Defendant Flynn stated, “I want officers to know that the chief is seeing their name, whether they’re doing well or need to improve their performance.”
217. Defendant Flynn and supervising MPD officers’ emphasis on the number of stops sends patrol officers the clear message that the quantity of stops matters more than whether the encounters are supported by reasonable suspicion and are not motivated by race or ethnicity.
218. Over the years, Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of pressuring MPD patrol officers to conduct increased stops has solidified into an implicit
50
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 50 of 91 Document 19

and/or explicit quota system requiring a certain number of stops per month for each MPD officer. On information and belief, MPD officers who fail to meet the productivity standards face adverse employment consequences. In their effort to satisfy these productivity standards, MPD officers across the Department routinely conduct suspicionless stops and frisks, like the ones to which the named Plaintiffs were subjected.
219. On May 5, 2016, Milwaukee Police Association President Michael Crivello wrote a letter to Defendant FPC protesting the imposition of an “absolute quota” requiring MPD officers to conduct at least two traffic stops per day. Letter from Michael V. Crivello, President, Milwaukee Police Association to Fire and Police Commission, May 5, 2016, http://www.city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/agendas5/160728_I II_D.pdf (“Crivello Letter”). Referring to the “quota like mandate” announced at MPD’s March 2016 Compstat meeting, Crivello’s letter stated, in pertinent part: “Police officers were clearly directed that the norm, or average, was two traffic stops per day. The requirement therefore moving forward, was that everyone would be required to produce two stops every day. For those that did not comply, they could expect progressive discipline up to and including termination. Ultimately, this places our officers in a very difficult situation; basically, stops must be made to preserve employment, rather than to facilitate public safety.”
51
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 51 of 91 Document 19

220. Crivello’s letter also noted: “Roll Call guidance specifically directed those who were not meeting the requirement should stop vehicles on the way to assignments. The information relayed: that while on the way to a Priority 3 or 4 assignment, traffic stops would be acceptable/encouraged. This should raise great concern . . . assignments can easily be under prioritized relative to insufficient information; or more likely, the longer it takes the officer to arrive – the more likely the assignment will evolve to greater concern, i.e., Priority 1 or 2 seriousness.”
221. Crivello’s letter protested that “it is simply wrong, inappropriate, and without value to mandate quantity of stops over quality.”
222. In July 2016, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that at an FPC meeting earlier that month, Mr. Crivello “testified that he had spoken with a police officer who said he had been transferred to another office after failing to make a certain number of stops.” Hannah Schwarz, “MPD Officials Say No Traffic Stop Quota Exists,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, July 28, 2016. At the meeting, MPD Assistant Police Chief James Harpole admitted that MPD officers were being encouraged to increase the number of traffic stops and that the March 2016 meeting had “featured a video with a two stop per officer model.” Id.
223. Despite being placed on notice about informal and/or formal stop quotas for MPD officers, upon information and belief, Defendants Flynn and FPC
52
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 52 of 91 Document 19

have taken no corrective action to ensure that MPD officers conduct stops in compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI.
Targeting So-Called “Known Offenders” for Suspicionless Stops and Frisks 224. Third, Defendants have a policy, practice, and custom of directing and encouraging MPD officers to repeatedly stop people with any past involvement in the criminal justice system, including a citation for a minor infraction, as a purported crime deterrence strategy. This policy, practice, and custom encourages MPD patrol officers to stop people simply because of alleged past conduct, leads directly to stops unsupported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and encourages MPD officers to conduct frisks of those they have stopped, even absent individualized and objective reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous. 225. Defendant Flynn has directed MPD officers to target so-called “known offenders” and “frequent fliers” for stops and frisks. He has made numerous statements encouraging officers to stop people with criminal histories, regardless of the specific circumstances in which police officers encounter them. His statements fail to acknowledge that stops must be supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and send the message that reasonable suspicion is not required.
53
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 53 of 91 Document 19

226. For instance, in the 2011 Traffic Stops Video, Chief Flynn stated: “If we know 10% of our offenders are responsible for 50% of the crime . . . we’ve got to target those guys. We’ve got to drive around looking for people. And if we see them, we have to encounter them and engage them. Most of the time, they are not carrying anything bad. But once we get inside their head, we’re hoping we’re gonna affect their behavior.” Videotape: Milwaukee Police Traffic Stops (Milwaukee Police Department, Nov. 21, 2011), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hu8q8WONzFI.
227. In the 2011 Traffic Stops Video, Defendant Flynn encouraged MPD officers to “develop the social antenna to know who’s who.” He further explained: “Twenty-four people well-known to us have been stopped 293 times. Now why do you think we are doing that? Because we know the guy! Ok, we know the guy is a bad guy. If I know a guy’s been arrested several times for drugs or burglary and I see him driving slow around the neighborhood, what do you want us to do?”
228. The Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of targeting people with a past citation or other criminal history also leads to disproportionate stops and frisks of Black and Latino people because these groups are more likely to have past involvement with the criminal justice system, due, in no small part, to saturation policing of their neighborhoods and consequent citations for low-level offenses. These citations are themselves frequently the result of the City’s policy, practice,
54
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 54 of 91 Document 19

and custom of targeting of Black and Latino people for stops and frisks that are not supported by reasonable suspicion.
E. Evidence of Stops and Frisks That Lack Reasonable Suspicion 229. MPD public record disclosures indicate that the MPD’s high-volume,
suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has led to routine and pervasive MPD stops and frisks that are unsupported by reasonable suspicion.
230. On April 14, 2014, the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation and the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation (collectively, “ACLU”) submitted a request under the Wisconsin public records law, Wisconsin Statute § 19.31-39, to Defendant Milwaukee and the MPD for MPD policies, guidelines, training documents, and specific data on all stops and frisks conducted by MPD between January 1, 2008 and the date of the request (“Records Request”).
231. On November 7, 2014, in response to the Records Request, the MPD provided data from the MPD’s Tiburon Records Management System (hereinafter “Tiburon disclosure”). The Tiburon disclosure includes data on traffic and pedestrian stops conducted between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2012, which were recorded in the Tiburon Records Management System (“Tiburon Data”). Putting aside small numbers of records with missing data, Tiburon Data provides the following information for each recorded stop: the stop location; a
55
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 55 of 91 Document 19

designated “Reason Code,” which provides information concerning the basis for the stop; and the race, age, and gender of the person stopped.
232. As part of a preliminary analysis of the Tiburon Data, 34,920 stops documented in the data were successfully matched to a specific location in Milwaukee and geocoded, yielding a scientifically acceptable geocoding hit rate (“Tiburon Geocoded Stops”).
233. The Tiburon disclosure strongly suggests that MPD officers routinely lack the reasonable suspicion required to conduct a stop.
234. At least 42% of the 34,920 Tiburon Geocoded Stops lack any identified reason that could plausibly show that an MPD officer had individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity to justify the stop. Specifically, 14,759 of the stops are marked with the Reason Code “Other,” “Null,” “Suspicious Circumstances,” “Suspicious Person,” or “Suspicious Vehicle.” None of these “reasons,” without more information, amount to individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity that would justify stopping the person in question. Neither the Tiburon disclosure nor any other information disclosed by MPD in response to the Records Request contains any additional facts about the circumstances of these 14,759 Tiburon Geocoded Stops that would demonstrate that the officer had reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity prior to making the stop.
56
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 56 of 91 Document 19

235. On information and belief, no other documentation exists to demonstrate that there was reasonable suspicion for each of the 14,759 Tiburon Geocoded Stops associated with the ambiguous reasons listed above, which were conducted between 2010 and 2012.
236. On December 5, 2014, in response to the Records Request, the MPD disclosed data on traffic and pedestrian stops from the MPD’s Traffic and Criminal Software module (“TraCS disclosure”). The TraCS disclosure includes data on stops conducted between January 1, 2011 and December 31, 2013, which were recorded in TraCS (“TraCS Data”). Putting aside small numbers of records with missing data, the TraCS Data provides the following information for each recorded stop: the stop location; broad information concerning the basis for the stop; additional information concerning the basis for the stop; and the race, age, and gender of the person stopped.
237. As part of a preliminary analysis, TraCS Data on 507,006 stops were successfully matched to a specific location in Milwaukee and geocoded, yielding a scientifically acceptable geocoding hit rate (“TraCS Geocoded Stops”).
238. The TraCS disclosure strongly suggests that MPD officers often lack the reasonable suspicion required to conduct lawful stops.
239. At least 41,117 records, or 8.1% of the TraCS Geocoded Traffic Stops, lack any information that would plausibly demonstrate that an MPD officer
57
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 57 of 91 Document 19

had individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity prior to making the stop. Of the 507,006 TraCS Geocoded Stops, some 16,049 stop records were marked only with the term “FIELD INTERVIEW STOP” as the Reason Code and had no additional details in either of the two “reason” fields where officers could have recorded additional information about the basis of the stop. Similarly, of the 507,006 TraCS Geocoded Stops, some 25,068 stop records were marked only with the term “TRAFFIC STOP” as the Reason Code for the stop, and had no additional details in either of the two “reason” fields where officers could have recorded additional information about the basis of the stop. Neither the TraCS disclosure nor any other information disclosed by MPD in response to the Records Request contains any additional facts about the circumstances of these 41,117 TraCS Geocoded Stops that would demonstrate that the officer had reasonable suspicion of any criminal activity prior to making the stop.
240. On information and belief, no other documentation exists to demonstrate that MPD officers had individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion to conduct the 41,117 TraCS Geocoded Stops conducted between 2011 and 2013, as discussed above.
241. In 2015 and 2016, the ACLU submitted requests to the MPD under the Wisconsin public records law, Wisconsin Statute § 19.31–39, for all MPD
58
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 58 of 91 Document 19

documents concerning each of the Plaintiffs. The MPD did not disclose any records setting forth the reason why any of the Plaintiffs were subjected to the stops or frisks described in this Complaint.
242. Additionally, as a matter of practice and custom, MPD officers routinely and systematically fail to document frisks and the basis for frisks in a manner that would permit supervisors to identify frisks that are unsupported by reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous and/or are motivated by race or ethnicity. Neither the Tiburon Data nor the TraCS Data indicate whether any of the pedestrian and traffic stops documented in these databases involved a frisk or a search, much less the basis of any frisk or search.
243. The Records Request sought information on all MPD frisks conducted between January 1, 2008 and April 14, 2014, including the total number of frisks and the reason for which each frisk was conducted. The MPD failed to disclose any information concerning frisks and stated that “the Milwaukee Police Department does not keep statistical data on ‘frisks.’” August 1, 2014 Letter from Vickie Gagliano, MPD, to Nusrat Choudhury, American Civil Liberties Union, at 3.
F. Evidence of Stops and Frisks Motivated by Race and Ethnicity 244. Data on MPD stops and analysis of that data provide further evidence
that the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program has resulted in
59
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 59 of 91 Document 19

stops and frisks that have a discriminatory impact on Black and Latino people and are motivated by race or ethnicity.
245. The 2011 MJS Report addressed four months of 2011 traffic stop data demonstrating that, compared to white drivers, Black drivers were seven times more likely and Hispanic drivers were five times more likely to be subjected to traffic stops throughout Milwaukee. It also concluded, “Wider disparities emerge when the stop rates are compared to Milwaukee’s driving population, based on the number of licensed drivers by race and ethnicity.”
246. Census estimates for the period 2010–2014 suggest that Black nonHispanic residents made up 34.3% of Milwaukee’s total population at that time.
247. Preliminary analysis of Tiburon Geocoded Pedestrian Stops from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2012, reveals that Black non-Hispanic people represented 72% of those stopped even though they made up an estimated 34% of the City’s total population at the time, according to U.S. Census figures.
248. Preliminary analysis of TraCS Geocoded Stops from January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2013, reveals that Black non-Hispanic people represented 62.7% of those subjected to traffic and pedestrian stops, even though they made up an estimated 34% of the City’s total population at the time, according to U.S. Census figures.
60
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 60 of 91 Document 19

249. Locating (geocoding) individual records from Tiburon Data and TraCS Data permitted connecting data on MPD stops to information about the community in which the stop took place, and the calculation of MPD stop rates for Black non-Hispanic people and white non-Hispanic people. It also permitted an estimation of the net impact of race on MPD stop rates because this preliminary analysis controlled for the following factors: community socioeconomic status, community residential stability, community racial and ethnic composition, the surrounding level of police stop activity in nearby communities, and district level violent crime rates for the previous calendar year.
250. Preliminary analysis of the Tiburon Geocoded Stops found that from 2010 to 2012, in many areas of the city, the predicted MPD stop rate for Black non-Hispanic people was well over twice as high as the predicted MPD stop rate for white non-Hispanic people. This difference reflects the net impact of race because the analysis controlled for the various community and policing factors, as described above. This racial disparity in stop rates was sizable and statistically significant at the 99.9% confidence level, which means that such a disparity could have occurred just because of chance alone fewer than one time in a thousand.
251. Preliminary analysis of the TraCS Gecoded Stops conducted from 2011 to 2013 found that the predicted MPD stop rate for Black non-Hispanic people was well over twice as high as the predicted stop rate for non-Hispanic
61
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 61 of 91 Document 19

white civilians. This difference reflects the net impact of race because the analysis controlled for the various community and policing factors, as described above. This racial disparity in stop rates was sizable and statistically significant at the 99.9% confidence level, which means that such a disparity would be expected to have occurred just because of chance alone fewer than one time in a thousand.
252. Preliminary analysis of the TraCS Geocoded Stops conducted from 2011 to 2013 also found that a Black non-Hispanic person who is subjected to a stop faces significantly higher odds of being searched versus not searched, compared to the odds that a stopped, white non-Hispanic person will be searched versus not searched. This difference reflects the net impact of race because the analysis controlled for the various community and policing factors, as described above. This racial disparity in stop rates was sizable and statistically significant at the 99.9% confidence level, which means that such a disparity could have occurred just because of chance alone fewer than one time in a thousand.
G. Defendants’ Knowledge of Widespread Rights Violations 253. At the time that Plaintiffs were unlawfully stopped or stopped and
frisked by MPD officers, Defendants were on notice that MPD officers were engaging in unlawful stops and frisks.
62
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 62 of 91 Document 19

254. Defendant Flynn is tasked with overseeing the day-to-day operations of the MPD and is the final decision-maker with respect to the development and implementation of MPD law enforcement tactics and strategies.
255. Defendant Flynn’s public statements, the 2011 MJS Report, the Crivello Letter, and the order of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin in Hardy v. City of Milwaukee, 88 F.Supp.3d 852 (E.D. Wis., Feb. 27, 2015), among other things, demonstrate Defendant Flynn’s longstanding awareness that unlawful MPD stops and frisks have been commonplace.
256. As discussed above, Defendant Flynn nevertheless continues to implement and enforce the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program even though he is aware, or should be aware, that the program results in the routine and pervasive violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of Milwaukee residents.
257. Defendant FPC is required by law to “[c]onduct a policy review of all aspects of the operations of the police and fire departments,” and to “[u]se oversight authority to identify systemic problems within the police and fire departments, identify opportunities for improvement through organizational change, and delegate authority for follow-up to the respective chief.” Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 314-3-1, 4. Defendant FPC is responsible for
63
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 63 of 91 Document 19

investigating citizen complaints concerning the MPD and disciplining MPD employees for misconduct, among other things.
258. Broadly speaking, the FPC’s oversight of the MPD is to be informed by, among other things, regular meetings with Defendant Flynn and his staff, research and analysis of relevant policies and procedures, and input from the general public.
259. As such, Defendant FPC is intimately familiar with MPD law enforcement strategies and complaints lodged by members of the public regarding the nature and impact of MPD’s law enforcement activities, including stop-andfrisk practices.
260. Indeed, the Executive Director of Defendant FPC is required by law to “[e]valuate police and fire department policies, practices, and patterns, including but not limited to deployment of staff . . . search, seizure, [and] citizen interaction and communication.” Milwaukee City Charter Ordinance § 314-5.
261. Defendant FPC is aware of, and has effectively ratified and sanctioned, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program, despite the fact that it knew or should have known—based in part on Defendant Flynn’s public statements, the 2011 MJS Report, the Crivello Letter, and the Hardy order, among other things—that this strategy resulted in the pervasive and routine violation of the constitutional and statutory rights of Milwaukee residents.
64
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 64 of 91 Document 19

H. The Defendants Fail to Properly Train and Supervise MPD Officers 262. Defendants FPC and Flynn, as final policymakers for Defendant
Milwaukee, fail to properly train and supervise MPD officers, knowing that such failures will result in violations of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI.
263. Defendant Flynn’s responsibilities include the development and implementation of MPD rules and guidelines, and the identification of areas in which MPD officers should be trained and/or retrained.
264. Because of its oversight responsibilities, Defendant FPC is intimately familiar with MPD training and supervision policies, including those that pertain to stop-and-frisk practices.
265. As discussed above, Defendant FPC’s responsibilities include identifying systemic problems with MPD practices that require policy reform and training, including through independent investigation and the monitoring of citizen complaints. In its oversight role, Defendant FPC is obligated to ensure that Defendant Flynn properly trains and/or retrains MPD staff to ensure that stops and frisks that are conducted are constitutional and comply with Title VI.
266. Defendants Flynn and FPC have failed, and continue to fail, to properly train and supervise MPD officers, including supervisors, concerning the
65
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 65 of 91 Document 19

legal and factual bases for conducting stops and frisks that comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI.
267. Defendants Flynn and FPC have also failed, and continue to fail, to properly train and supervise MPD officers, including supervisors, concerning adequate documentation of the bases for stops and frisks in a manner that permits supervisors to ensure that stops are supported by reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, that frisks are supported by reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous, and that neither stops nor frisks are motivated by race or ethnicity.
268. The MPD’s response to the Records Request provides evidence of Defendants Flynn and FPC’s failure to train.
269. The Records Request sought “[a]ll records, including training materials, manuals, protocols, procedures, regulations, and guidelines, created since January 1, 2008, setting forth the MPD’s policies concerning: a. the stop, frisk, search and arrest of pedestrians. . . .” In response, the MPD disclosed MPD Standard Operating Procedure 710 on Field Interview/Traffic Warning Cards (“SOP 710”), and MPD Standard Operating Procedure 085 (“SOP 085”) on Citizen Contacts, Field Interviews, and Search and Seizure.
270. From the year 2000 through June 1, 2013, SOP 710 required MPD officers to document field interviews and minor traffic violations that did not lead to arrest on a Field Interview/Traffic Warning Card, but did not require officers to
66
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 66 of 91 Document 19

document individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity supporting a stop on the Card or explain that such documentation would permit supervisory review for compliance with constitutional requirements.
271. SOP 085 has been in force since June 2, 2013, and has been revised twice. SOP 085 has required, and continues to require, that MPD officers document information about field interviews that do not result in a citation or arrest in the Tiburon Field Interview Module. But SOP 085 has not instructed, and continues to fail to instruct, that officers who conduct stops should document sufficient information to demonstrate that the stop was supported by individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity so as to permit supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI.
272. Moreover, Defendants have failed to promulgate any MPD policy, procedure, or guideline requiring officers who conduct frisks to document the bases of these encounters, so as to permit supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI. Neither SOP 710 nor SOP 085, in any of their past or current iterations, has instructed officers to document frisks or the basis for frisks. Form PF-4, which SOP 085 requires officers to complete to document field interviews that do not result in citation or arrest, does
67
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 67 of 91 Document 19

not elicit information about whether a field interview included a frisk or the basis of any such frisk.
273. Defendants’ inadequate training and supervision of MPD officers who conduct stops and frisks and their supervisors is a direct and proximate cause of the MPD’s rampant unconstitutional stops and frisks.
274. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant FPC and Defendant Flynn’s leadership and failure to train and supervise MPD officers, tens of thousands of people have been subjected to unlawful stops and frisks, many times simply because of their race or ethnicity.
275. By failing to properly train and supervise MPD officers, the Defendants have acted recklessly and with deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of those who would come into contact with MPD.
I. The Defendants Have a Policy, Practice, and Custom of Failing to Monitor and Discipline MPD Officers 276. The MPD’s widespread abuses are also a direct and proximate result
of Defendants’ failure to properly and adequately monitor, discipline, and take necessary corrective action against MPD officers who engage in, encourage, or conceal unconstitutional practices. Among other things, Defendants Flynn and FPC, as final policymakers for Defendant Milwaukee, knowingly, deliberately, and recklessly have failed to:
68
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 68 of 91 Document 19

a. take appropriate disciplinary action and corrective measures against MPD officers who have engaged in suspicionless stops and frisks;
b. take appropriate disciplinary action and corrective measures against officers who have engaged in stops or frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity;
c. monitor adequately MPD officers who have incurred a substantial number of civilian complaints, even in instances where the number of complaints should have triggered monitoring under established departmental guidelines;
d. conduct adequate auditing to determine whether the stops and frisks conducted by MPD officers comply with any written policies prohibiting stops and frisks that are not based upon reasonable suspicion and that use race or ethnicity as a motivating factor in initiating police action;
e. take sufficient, if any, steps to curb MPD officers’ non-compliance with departmental directives requiring PF-4 forms to be completed for each field interview that does not lead to a citation or arrest, and subsequent entry of data on PF-4 forms into the Tiburon Field Interview Module;
f. take sufficient, if any, steps to curb MPD officers’ non-compliance with departmental directives requiring TraCS traffic stop data collection forms to be completed for each traffic stop, and subsequent entry of data on such forms into the Traffic and Criminal Software Module;
g. take sufficient corrective and remedial action against MPD officers who provide fabricated, false, or impermissible justifications for stops and frisks;
h. take sufficient corrective, disciplinary, and remedial action against command staff and supervising officers involved in the institution of a formal or informal numerical quota for stops and/or frisks; and
i. take sufficient corrective, disciplinary and remedial action against MPD officers who conceal or fail to report police misconduct.
69
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 69 of 91 Document 19

277. Defendants have failed to properly and adequately monitor, discipline and take necessary corrective action against MPD officers as described above, knowing that such omissions would lead to Fourth Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment, and Title VI violations.
278. Defendants’ inadequate monitoring of MPD officers who conduct stops and frisks and their supervisors, and failure to discipline those who engage in unconstitutional conduct is a direct and proximate cause of the MPD’s rampant unconstitutional stops and frisks.
279. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant FPC and Defendant Flynn’s leadership and inadequate monitoring and discipline of MPD officers and supervisors, tens of thousands of people have been subjected to unlawful stops and frisks, many times simply because of their race or ethnicity.
280. By such acts and omissions, they have acted recklessly and with deliberate indifference to the constitutional and statutory rights of those who would come into contact with the MPD.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS Main Class
281. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the named Plaintiffs seek to represent a Main Class consisting of all
70
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 70 of 91 Document 19

persons who, since January 7, 2008, have been or will be stopped and/or stopped and frisked by MPD officers.
282. The Main Class is sufficiently numerous such that joinder of all members is impracticable. Each year, MPD officers stop around 200,000 people in Milwaukee, thousands of whom are subjected to these encounters absent reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct.
283. In addition, joinder is impracticable because, upon information and belief, many members of the Main Class are not aware that their rights under the U.S. Constitution and Title VI have been violated and that they have the right to seek redress in court. Many members of the Main Class are without the means to retain an attorney to represent them in a civil rights lawsuit. Moreover, many Main Class members who have been victimized by the MPD’s unconstitutional policies, practices, and customs do not bring individual claims for fear of retaliation and reprisals by MPD officers. There is no appropriate avenue for the protection of the Main Class members’ constitutional rights other than a class action.
284. The Main Class members share a number of common questions of law and fact, including, but not limited to:
a. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of targeting expansive geographic areas for large numbers of stops and frisks;
71
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 71 of 91 Document 19

b. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of measuring officer productivity according to informal or formal stop quotas and sanctioning officers who fail to meet those quotas;
c. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of authorizing MPD officers to target people with criminal histories for repeated stops without regard for individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct as required by the Fourth Amendment;
d. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of authorizing and encouraging stops that are unsupported by individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct as required by the Fourth Amendment;
e. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting frisks in the absence of objective and reasonable, articulable suspicion to believe that the person is armed and dangerous, as required under the Fourth Amendment;
f. whether Defendants have failed to properly train, supervise, monitor, and/or discipline MPD officers, and whether those failures have caused MPD officers to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of the Main Class members; and
g. whether Defendants have encouraged, sanctioned, acquiesced to, and/or failed to rectify unconstitutional stops and/or stops and frisks by MPD officers of which they were aware or should have been aware, and whether such acts and/or omissions have caused MPD officers to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of Main Class members.
285. The named Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Main
Class. Like the other members of the Main Class, each of the named Plaintiffs has
been and likely will again be stopped and/or stopped and frisked by MPD officers.
72
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 72 of 91 Document 19

286. The named Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief under legal theories that are the same or similar to those on which all members of the Main Class will rely. The named Plaintiffs suffered harms that are typical of the harms suffered by the Main Class members.
287. The named Plaintiffs have a strong personal interest in the outcome of this action, have no conflicts of interest with members of the Main Class, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Main Class. All named Main Class members reside in Milwaukee or visit it frequently. So long as the Defendants’ high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program continues, the named Plaintiffs remain at risk of being illegally stopped and/or stopped and frisked by MPD officers. Indeed, at least two of the named Plaintiffs have been stopped repeatedly by MPD officers. None of the named Plaintiffs is seeking compensatory or punitive damages.
288. By developing and maintaining a policy, practice, and custom of highvolume, suspicionless stops and frisks, the Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Main Class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.
73
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 73 of 91 Document 19

Subclass
289. Pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, the named Plaintiffs also seek to represent a Subclass consisting of
Black and Latino members of the Main Class.
290. This Subclass is sufficiently numerous such that joinder of all
members is impracticable. A majority of those stopped and/or frisked in
Milwaukee are Black or Latino. Annually, MPD officers stop more than 100,000
Black and Latino people in Milwaukee; upon information and belief, thousands of
these encounters are impermissibly motivated by race and/or ethnicity.
291. Members of the Subclass share a number of common questions of law
and fact, including, but not limited to:
a. whether the Defendants have a policy, practice, or custom of targeting predominantly Black and Latino neighborhoods for MPD saturation patrols;
b. whether the Defendants maintain a policy, practice, and custom of targeting Black and Latino people for stops and frisks based on race and ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI;
c. whether Defendants’ policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting stops and frisks has an adverse effect on Black and Latino people and is motivated by race and ethnicity in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Title VI;
d. whether the Defendants have failed to properly train, supervise, monitor, and/or discipline MPD officers, and whether those failures have caused MPD officers to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Subclass members; and,
74
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 74 of 91 Document 19

e. whether the Defendants have encouraged, sanctioned, and/or failed to rectify unconstitutional stops and/or stops and frisks by MPD officers, and whether such acts and/or omissions have caused MPD officers to violate the constitutional and statutory rights of Subclass members.
292. The claims of the named Plaintiffs, all of whom are Black or Latino people who were stopped by MPD officers on at least one occasion, are typical of the claims of the Subclass.
293. The named Plaintiffs have a strong personal interest in the outcome of this action, have no conflicts of interest with members of the Subclass, and will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Subclass.
294. By developing and maintaining a policy, practice, and/or custom of conducting stops and frisks that encourages, or otherwise causes, stops and frisks that are motivated by race and ethnicity, Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the Subclass, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the Subclass as a whole.
295. The named Plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union Foundation; the American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation; and Covington & Burling LLP. All counsel are experienced civil rights attorneys who have litigated a range of class action lawsuits, including matters involving systemic constitutional violations by law enforcement officials. Plaintiffs’ counsel have the resources, expertise, and experience to prosecute this action. Counsel for
75
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 75 of 91 Document 19

the Plaintiffs know of no conflicts among members of the class or between the attorneys and members of the class.
296. The Plaintiff Main Class and Subclass should be certified pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the Main Class and Subclass, making class-wide declaratory and injunctive relief appropriate.
LEGAL CLAIMS Claim 1
VIOLATION OF THE FOURTH AMENDMENT PROTECTION AGAINST UNREASONABLE SEARCHES AND SEIZURES BY THE GOVERNMENT
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
297. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.
298. This claim is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed Main Class.
299. The Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the people from unreasonable searches and seizures by the government. As such, it prohibits police from subjecting a person to a stop in the absence of individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. The Fourth Amendment also prohibits police from subjecting a person to a frisk in the absence
76
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 76 of 91 Document 19

of individualized, objective and articulable reasonable suspicion to believe that the person is armed and dangerous.
300. The Defendants developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and custom of subjecting members of the Main Class to police stops without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and frisking members of the Main Class without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, as required by the Fourth Amendment.
301. Each of the named Plaintiffs suffered a violation of his or her clearly established right to be free from suspicionless police stops when stopped as a pedestrian or driver by at least one MPD officer while engaged in routine, lawful activities, and under circumstances that did not give rise to individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. As a result, each Plaintiff was detained by an MPD officer, questioned, and made to suffer the humiliation and indignity of being wrongfully branded a criminal suspect on at least one occasion. D.A., Mr. Chambers, and Mr. Olivar were subjected to multiple unlawful MPD stops.
302. D.A., Ms. Silvestre, Mr. Crowley, and Mr. Olivar suffered the additional violation of their clearly established right to be free from suspicionless police frisks when at least one MPD officer frisked and/or searched them under
77
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 77 of 91 Document 19

circumstances that did not give rise to individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that they were armed or dangerous.
303. The Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs directly and proximately caused, and continue to cause, the violation of Plaintiffs’ right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures.
304. As a result of the Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs, all named Plaintiffs suffered harm, including humiliation, pain, physical injuries, emotional distress, loss of liberty, and/or violations of their constitutional and statutory rights.
305. Defendants’ conduct continues to violate the Fourth Amendment rights of individuals in Milwaukee on a daily basis, and is the proximate cause of widespread harm among members of the Main Class.
306. These constitutional abuses were, and are, directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the Defendants, including: (a) the saturation of expansive, so-called “high-crime” areas with suspicionless stops and frisks; (b) the adoption of informal and/or formal stop quotas for MPD officers; (c) the targeting of so-called “known offenders” for suspicionless stops; (d) the failure to properly train and supervise MPD officers, including supervisors; (e) the failure to properly and adequately monitor MPD officers; and (f) the overt and tacit encouragement
78
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 78 of 91 Document 19

and sanctioning of, and failure to rectify, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program. The Defendants knew, or should have known, of the MPD’s longstanding policy, practice, and custom of conducting suspicionless stops and frisks. Defendants’ actions and inactions were deliberately indifferent to the clearly established constitutional rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Main Class.
307. The Defendants have acquiesced to the well-settled, longstanding, and widespread suspicionless stops and frisks that have resulted and continue to result from the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stop-and-frisk program. The MPD’s practice of conducting suspicionless stops and frisks has therefore become policy, practice, and custom with the force of law, and reflects deliberate indifference on the part of the Defendants to the Fourth Amendment rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Main Class.
308. All Plaintiffs reside in, and/or frequently travel to, the neighborhoods where they have been previously stopped or stopped and frisked, as described above, as well as neighborhoods that are routinely targeted for large numbers of MPD suspicionless stops, including Milwaukee Police Districts Three, Five, and Seven. In addition, D.A., Mr. Chambers, and Mr. Olivar have each been subjected to multiple unlawful MPD stops. As a result, Plaintiffs face not only a reasonable
79
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 79 of 91 Document 19

likelihood, but a substantial threat, that they will again be subjected to unlawful stops and frisks by MPD officers in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
309. The Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions place Plaintiffs at continuing and foreseeable risk of being subjected to suspicionless stops and frisks, and of experiencing the stigmatization and humiliation of being treated like criminal suspects. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Main Class, seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief because they have no adequate remedy at law to prevent future injury caused by being subjected to suspicionless stops and frisks in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights.
310. Defendants act under color of state law when their actions, policies, practices, customs, and omissions create a real, imminent, and substantial threat that Plaintiffs will again be stopped and frisked in violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, and their acts and omissions can be fairly attributed to the City.
Claim 2 VIOLATION OF THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT
EQUAL PROTECTION CLAUSE Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983
311. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.
80
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 80 of 91 Document 19

312. This claim is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed Subclass.
313. The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution requires that all people be treated equally under the law without regard for, among other things, their race or ethnicity. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. As such, it prohibits law enforcement officers from conducting racial and ethnic profiling in stop-and-frisk practices. It also prohibits police from conducting stops and frisks in a manner that has a discriminatory effect on a racial or ethnic group, and that is motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
314. The Defendants developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and custom of MPD stops and frisks of members of the Subclass that results in significant racial and ethnic disparities and that is motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. Defendants’ policy, practice and custom of high-volume, suspicionless stops and frisks involves racial and ethnic profiling.
315. Each of the named Plaintiffs is Black or Latino, and suffered a violation of his or her clearly established right to equal protection of the law when he or she was subjected to a police stop, or stop and frisk, motivated by race and/or ethnicity, rather than the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment.
81
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 81 of 91 Document 19

As a result, each Plaintiff was detained by an MPD officer, questioned, and made to suffer the humiliation and indignity of being wrongfully branded a criminal suspect.
316. Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs directly and proximately caused, and continue to cause, the violation of Plaintiffs’ rights to equal protection under the law.
317. As a result of the policies, practices, customs, and conduct of the Defendants, all named Plaintiffs suffered harm, including humiliation, pain, physical injuries, and/or emotional distress, loss of liberty, and/or violations of their constitutional and statutory rights. Defendants’ conduct continues to violate the Fourteenth Amendment rights of Black and Latino people in Milwaukee on a daily basis and is the proximate cause of widespread harm among members of the Subclass.
318. These constitutional abuses were, and are, directly and proximately caused by policies, practices, and customs devised, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned by the Defendants, including: (a) the saturation of expansive, so-called “high-crime” areas with suspicionless stops and frisks; (b) the adoption of informal and/or formal stop quotas for MPD officers; (c) the targeting of so-called “known offenders” for suspicionless stops; (d) the failure to properly train MPD officers, including supervisors; (e) the failure to properly and
82
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 82 of 91 Document 19

adequately monitor MPD officers; and (f) the overt and tacit encouragement and sanctioning of, and failure to rectify, the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stopand-frisk program despite its adverse impact on Black and Latino people. The Defendants knew, or should have known, of the City’s longstanding policy, practice, pattern, and custom of conducting suspicionless stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity. Their actions and inactions were deliberately indifferent to the clearly established constitutional rights of Plaintiffs.
319. The Defendants have acquiesced to the well-settled, longstanding, and widespread stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity, which have resulted and continue to result from the MPD’s high-volume, suspicionless stopand-frisk program. The MPD’s practice of conducting suspicionless stops and frisks that are motivated by race and ethnicity has therefore become policy, practice, and custom with the force of law, and reflects deliberate indifference to the rights of the Plaintiffs and members of the Subclass under the Fourteenth Amendment.
320. All Plaintiffs are Black or Latino and reside in, and/or frequently travel to, the neighborhoods where they have been previously stopped, or stopped and frisked, as described above, as well as neighborhoods that are routinely targeted for large numbers of MPD suspicionless stops, including Milwaukee Police Districts Three, Five, and Seven. In addition, D.A., Mr. Chambers, and Mr.
83
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 83 of 91 Document 19

Olivar have each been subjected to multiple unlawful MPD stops. As a result, Plaintiffs face not only a reasonable likelihood, but a substantial threat, that they will again be subjected to unlawful stops and frisks by MPD officers, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
321. The Defendants’ policies, practices, customs, acts, and omissions place Plaintiffs at continuing and foreseeable risk of being subjected to stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity, and of experiencing the stigmatization and humiliation of being treated like criminal suspects. Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Subclass, seek prospective declaratory and injunctive relief because they have no adequate remedy at law to prevent future injury caused by being subjected to stops and frisks that are motivated by race and ethnicity in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights.
322. The Defendants act under color of state law when their actions, policies, practices, customs, and omissions create a real, imminent, and substantial threat that the Plaintiffs will again be stopped and frisked in violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights, and their acts and omissions can be fairly attributed to the City.
84
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 84 of 91 Document 19

Claim 3 VIOLATION OF TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et. seq.
323. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference as if fully set forth herein the allegations in all preceding paragraphs.
324. This claim is brought by the named Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and the members of the proposed Subclass.
325. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance, including law enforcement programs and activities. Title VI prohibits intentional discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. As such, it prohibits law enforcement officers from conducting racial and ethnic profiling in stop-and-frisk practices. It also prohibits police from conducting stops and frisks in a manner that has a discriminatory effect on a racial or ethnic group, and that is motivated by a discriminatory purpose.
326. The Defendants are recipients of substantial amounts of federal financial assistance, including financial assistance for law enforcement activities.
327. The Defendants developed, implemented, enforced, encouraged, and sanctioned a policy, practice, and custom of MPD stops and frisks of members of the Subclass that results in significant disparate impact on Black and Latino people
85
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 85 of 91 Document 19

and that is motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than the reasonable suspicion required by the Fourth Amendment. Defendants’ policy, practice and custom of high-volume, suspicionless stops and frisks involves racial and ethnic profiling.
328. As a direct and proximate result of the above-mentioned policies, practices, customs, and acts, the named Plaintiffs and members of the Subclass have suffered injuries and have been deprived of their rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Without appropriate injunctive relief, these violations will continue to occur.
RELIEF REQUESTED Wherefore, the named Plaintiffs and other members of the Main Class and Subclass they seek to represent respectfully request that: A. The Court assume jurisdiction over this action; B. The Court issue an Order certifying this case as a class action pursuant to
Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, with the named Plaintiffs as representatives of the Main Class and Subclass; C. The Court issue a class-wide judgment declaring that the Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of conducting suspicionless police stops and frisks, as challenged in this Complaint, violates the rights of the Main Class under the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
86
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 86 of 91 Document 19

D. The Court issue a class-wide judgment declaring that the Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of conducting stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity, as challenged in this Complaint, violates the rights of the Subclass under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act;
E. The Court issue an Order for the following injunctive relief: a. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting police stops without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity; b. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting police frisks without reasonable suspicion that the subject of the frisk is armed and dangerous; c. Enjoining the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn from continuing the policy, practice, and custom of conducting stops and frisks that are motivated by race or ethnicity; d. Enjoining the use of formal or informal quotas for stops and frisks by MPD officers; e. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement improved policies and programs with respect to
87
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 87 of 91 Document 19

training, supervision, monitoring, and discipline that will eliminate the policy, practice, pattern, and custom of suspicionless stops and frisks; f. Requiring the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement improved policies and programs with respect to training, supervision, monitoring, and discipline to eliminate the Defendants’ policy, practice, and custom of suspicionless stops and frisks that are motived by race or ethnicity; g. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to institute and implement appropriate and adequate supervision and discipline of MPD officers who conduct stops and frisks; h. Requiring the Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to implement appropriate measures to ensure that MPD officers document all stops and frisks, the basis for each stop and frisk, and demographic and location information related to each encounter, regardless of whether the encounter is followed by the use of force, consent search, citation, or arrest, and to do so in sufficient detail as to permit supervisory review for compliance with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
88
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 88 of 91 Document 19

i. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to implement appropriate measures to ensure that documentation of all traffic and pedestrian stops and frisks is retained in a single, up-to-date computerized database;
j. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC, and Flynn to make publicly available data on all stops and frisks conducted by the MPD on a semiannual basis, including information on the race, ethnicity, location, and reasons for stops and frisks;
k. Requiring Defendants Milwaukee, FPC and Flynn to monitor and audit MPD stop-and-frisk policies, practices, and customs, to ensure that stops and frisks comport with constitutional and statutory requirements, including by, among other things, periodically reviewing forms documenting stops and frisks and analyzing data on stops and frisks.
F. The Court award reasonable attorneys’ fees to all Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988;
G. The Court award costs of litigation to all Plaintiffs, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1920 and 1988; and
89
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 89 of 91 Document 19

H. The Court award such other and further relief as this Court may deem
appropriate and in the interests of justice.
Respectfully Submitted this 23rd day of May,
s/ Nusrat J. Choudhury
NUSRAT J. CHOUDHURY N.Y. State Bar No. 4538302 JASON D. WILLIAMSON N.Y. State Bar No. 4645529 Attorneys for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Inc. 125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004 Telephone: (212) 549-2500 Fax: (212) 549-2654 nchoudhury@aclu.org jwilliamson@aclu.org
KARYN L. ROTKER WI State Bar No. 1007719 LAURENCE J. DUPUIS WI State Bar No. 1029261 Attorneys for Plaintiffs American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation 207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Telephone: (414) 272-4032 Fax: (414) 272-0182 krotker@aclu-wi.org ldupuis@aclu-wi.org
ANTHONY HERMAN D.C. Bar No. 424643 SHANYA DINGLE D.C. Bar No. 1035007
90
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 90 of 91 Document 19

ELIZABETH SAXE D.C. Bar No. 1010846 JUSTIN GOLART VA State Bar No. 83929 KERREL MURRAY VA State Bar No. 87844 JESSICA JENSEN CA State Bar No. 308820 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Covington & Burling LLP 850 Tenth Street NW Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: (202) 662-6000 Fax: (202) 662-6291 aherman@cov.com sdingle@cov.com esaxe@cov.com jgolart@cov.com kmurray@cov.com jjensen@cov.com
91
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 05/24/17 Page 91 of 91 Document 19

 </s> UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF WISCONSIN

CHARLES COLLINS, DALLAS ADAMS, CALEB ROBERTS, STEPHEN JANSEN, GREGORY CHAMBERS, ALICIA SILVESTRE, DAVID CROWLEY, and JEREMY BROWN,

Case No. 17-CV-234-JPS

Plaintiffs, v.

CITY OF MILWAUKEE, MILWAUKEE FIRE AND POLICE COMMISSION, and CHIEF ALFONSO MORALES, in his official capacity as the Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department,

ORDER and SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Defendants.

The parties have reached a settlement in this matter. They now ask that the Court enter an order approving their settlement as more fully detailed herein. (Docket #133). With the benefit of the parties’ agreement together with the record as a whole, the Court will approve the settlement, adopt the parties’ proposed order incorporated herein, and retain jurisdiction over this matter for purposes of enforcing this order.
What follows is the parties’ agreement, endorsed by their counsel together with the Court’s order.

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 53 Document 135

I. INTRODUCTION A. Plaintiffs’ Claims 1. This class action lawsuit for declaratory and injunctive relief
was filed on February 22, 2017, against the City of Milwaukee (“Milwaukee”), the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission (“FPC”), and in his official capacity Alfonso Morales, the Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD”)1 (hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as “Defendants”) by named plaintiffs Charles Collins, Caleb Roberts, Stephen Jansen, Gregory Chambers, Alicia Silvestre, David Crowley, Jeremy Brown, and Dallas Adams (hereinafter referred to individually and collectively as “Plaintiffs”). 2 Plaintiffs allege that Defendants’ policies, practices, and customs related to stops and frisks by the Milwaukee Police Department (“MPD”) violate the United States Constitution by: (1) authorizing MPD officers to stop people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (2) authorizing MPD officers to frisk people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (3) sustaining stops and frisks of
1Plaintiffs’ Class Action Complaint and Amended Class Action Complaint named as a defendant Edward Flynn in his official capacity as Chief of the MPD. Amended Class Action Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ¶ 27 (May 24, 2017), (Docket #19) (“Am. Compl.”). Due to the retirement of Edward Flynn on February 16, 2018 and subsequent appointment of Alfonso Morales as Chief of the MPD, Alfonso Morales is automatically substituted for Edward Flynn as a defendant sued in his official capacity pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d).
2Plaintiffs and Defendants are from time to time referred to hereinafter individually as a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
Page 2 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 53 Document 135

Black and Latino people that involve racial and ethnic profiling, or are otherwise motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (“Title VI”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
B. Defendants’ Response 1. Defendants deny that their policies, practices or customs related to stops and frisks by the MPD violate the United States Constitution, and, in particular, the Defendants deny that they: (1) authorized MPD officers to stop people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; (2) authorized MPD officers to frisk people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, in violation of the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and (3) sustained stops and frisks of Black and Latino people that involve racial and ethnic profiling, or are otherwise motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Title VI. C. Mutual Recognition of Principles 1. The Parties to this Settlement Agreement and Court Order (“Agreement”) recognize the need for compliance with the requirements and mandates of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution in the conduct of MPD stops and frisks. Accordingly, the Parties have agreed to the following binding provisions of this Agreement.
Page 3 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 53 Document 135

II. STANDING OF INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFFS
1. The Parties further agree that this Agreement shall be enforceable by the named individual Plaintiffs and that Defendants shall not object to standing, and that Defendants further will not object to the substitution of individual plaintiffs for the presently-named individual Plaintiffs during the time set forth below for the continuing jurisdiction of the Court. III. DEFINITIONS
1. A “stop” is defined as a police encounter with a civilian in which, taking into account all of the circumstances surrounding the encounter, the police conduct would have communicated to a reasonable person that he or she was not at liberty to ignore the police presence and go about his or her business. See McGann v. Ne. Ill. Reg’l Commuter R.R. Corp., 8 F.3d 1174, 1184–85 (7th Cir. 1993).
2. For purposes of this Agreement, a “traffic stop” is defined as a stop of a driver or passenger in a vehicle that results in a warning, citation, summons, or arrest for a traffic or vehicle equipment offense.
3. For purposes of this Agreement, a “field interview” is defined as any stop of a person by an MPD member, other than a traffic stop, in which a member obtains a person’s name or identification, and questions that person about that person’s actions or behavior. MPD documents may interchangeably refer to a “field interview,” “Terry stop,” or “subject stop.” Solely the term “field interview” will be used in this Agreement.
a. A “vehicle field interview” is a field interview of a driver or passenger in a vehicle.
b. A “pedestrian field interview” is a field interview of a
Page 4 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 4 of 53 Document 135

person who is not a driver or passenger in a vehicle, including but not limited to, people walking or otherwise moving on foot, cyclists, and people moving in assistive devices, such as wheelchairs. 4. For purposes of this Agreement, a “no-action encounter” is defined as any situation in which an MPD member briefly questions a person about that person, or that persons’ own actions or behavior, but does not obtain the person’s name. A no-action encounter may include, but is not limited to, a situation in which an officer initially believed that there was reasonable suspicion or probable cause but quickly determined that there was not, and did not obtain that person’s name. “No-action encounters” include situations in which the person is a driver or passenger in a vehicle, a cyclist, or is walking or otherwise moving on foot or moving in assistive devices, such as wheelchairs. A “no-action encounter” shall not be considered a “traffic stop” or “field interview,” but shall be documented in the Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system in accordance with section IV.A. of this Agreement. 5. A “frisk” is defined as a protective pat down to find weapons that a police officer reasonably believes or suspects are in the possession of the person who has been subjected to a stop. See Adams v. Williams, 407 U.S. 143, 146 (1972) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24 (1968)). For purposes of this Agreement, any police encounter with a member of the public involving a “frisk” shall be documented pursuant to the procedures detailed in paragraph IV.A.2 for the documentation of “traffic stops” or “field interviews” as appropriate based on the circumstances of the frisk. 6. A “search” is defined as the examination of a person’s body, property, or other area that the person would reasonably be expected to
Page 5 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 5 of 53 Document 135

consider as private by a police officer for the purpose of finding evidence of a crime. For purposes of this Agreement, any police encounter with a member of the public involving a “search” shall be documented pursuant to the procedures detailed in paragraph IV.A.2 for the documentation of “traffic stops” or “field interviews” as appropriate based on the circumstances of the search.
7. For the purposes of this Agreement, the “Consultant” shall be Crime and Justice Institute and shall implement the roles and responsibilities of the Consultant as set forth in this Agreement. IV. POLICIES
1. Defendants shall ensure that all MPD traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks are conducted in accordance with the rights protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States and are carried out with fairness and respect.
2. Defendants shall require that all MPD traffic stops, field interviews, and no-action encounters are supported by individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct. Reasonable suspicion is evaluated “based on the totality of the circumstances known to the officer at the time the stop is made.” United States v. Uribe, 709 F.3d 646, 650 (7th Cir. 2013). Consequently, there may be instances in which an officer has individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion when initiating the encounter, but subsequent developments establish that the subject of the encounter is not or has not engaged in criminal activity or a traffic or vehicle equipment offense.
3. Defendants shall require that all MPD frisks are supported by individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that an
Page 6 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 6 of 53 Document 135

individual is armed and poses a present danger to the officer or a member of the public.
4. Defendants shall prohibit MPD officers from relying to any degree on an individual’s race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, age, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, limited English proficiency, disability, or housing status to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause, in the absence of a specific suspect description.
5. Subsequent to events complained of in this lawsuit, Defendants have announced generally to the members of the police department that there are no formal or informal quotas, or other numerical benchmarks, for traffic stops, field interviews, frisks, searches or arrests. In addition to maintaining their written policies continuing to prohibit quotas and other numerical benchmarks, Defendants will repeat this policy during all MPD training programs concerning traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, searches, and/or arrests, including, but not limited to, training for new police officers and re-training for officers identified through supervisory review, the complaint process, and/or EIP to have conducted unlawful traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, searches, and/or arrests.
6. The number of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks and/or searches by any officer, squad, District, or other subunit of MPD, shall not be used as a performance indicator or in any other way to evaluate performance.
7. Subject to the required process for proposal of amendments to MPD Standard Operating Procedures (“SOPs”) and FPC approval, Defendants shall revise MPD policies and guidelines to make clear that
Page 7 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 7 of 53 Document 135

officers shall not rely solely on generalized categories to determine individualized, objective and articulable reasonable suspicion or probable cause, including solely the: (1) “appearance or demeanor” of a person, (2) the “hour of the day or night,” or (3) the alleged “inappropriate presence” of a person “in a neighborhood.” These categories can be used in combination with other legally appropriate factors not articulated in this agreement to determine reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
8. Defendants shall maintain the MPD policies which already make clear that the principles and constitutional standards set forth in paragraphs IV.1–7 apply to all traffic stops, field interviews, no action encounters, frisks, and searches conducted by MPD personnel, regardless of the tactical or strategic policing strategy being implemented. The Parties agree that these principles and standards apply in situations including, but not limited to, an MPD officer who conducts a pretextual stop; engages in a directed or saturation patrol; participates in Data-Driven Approaches to Crime and Traffic Safety; serves as a member of the Neighborhood Task Force; polices in any so-called “high-crime area,” “hotspot,” or “flare spot”; identifies an alleged “commonly stolen vehicle”; engages in any “broken windows” or similar policing strategy; and/or enforces low-level offenses, including, but not limited to, enforcement related to parking and equipment violations and municipal ordinance violations.
9. Defendants shall revise their policies and practices concerning directed and saturation patrols, including SOP 300–Directed Patrol Mission, to provide proper guidance to officers about the specific actions officers are expected to take in a directed or saturation patrol in order to achieve patrol objectives, and to clearly prohibit traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks that are unsupported by the
Page 8 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 8 of 53 Document 135

requisite reasonable suspicion or are based on race, ethnicity, national origin, or another prohibited characteristic identified in paragraph IV.4.
10. To effectuate the principles and constitutional standards addressed in paragraphs IV.1–8, Defendants shall prepare the proposed revised policies detailed in this paragraph through procedures that conform with the requirements of Wisconsin State law, and shall ensure that these proposed revised policies are ready for submission to the FPC for final approval within ninety (90) days of entry into this Agreement. Defendant Morales, with the City Attorney as appropriate, shall recommend that the FPC enact the proposed revised policies discussed herein. If the FPC does not enact any of the proposed revised policies prepared pursuant to this paragraph, the Parties and the Executive Director of the FPC shall meet and confer with each other to prepare another revision to the proposed revised policies for submission to the FPC for enactment.
a. Defendants agree to amend MPD SOP 001 – Fair and Impartial Policing, as shown in the redlined document attached to this Agreement as Appendix A.
b. Defendants also agree to work with Plaintiffs to amend the following MPD SOPs within sixty (60) days of entering into this Agreement to reflect provisions of this Agreement that pertain to policies, procedures, guidelines, and standards addressed in these specific SOPs. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, they agree to submit their proposed changes to Judge Lynn Adelman for his recommendation. Any of the following are subject to the process prescribed by Wis.
Page 9 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 9 of 53 Document 135

Stats. § 62.50(3) for FPC approval in accord with its

rules:

i.

SOP 085–Citizen Contacts, Field

Interviews, Search and Seizure;

ii.

SOP 300–Directed Patrol Missions /

Saturation Patrols;

iii.

SOP 440–Early Intervention Program;

iv.

SOP 450–Personnel Investigations;

v.

SOP 730–Mobile Digital Video / Audio

Recording Equipment;

vi.

SOP 747–Body Worn Camera; and

vii.

SOP 990–Inspections.

11. To effectuate the principles and constitutional standards

addressed in paragraphs IV. 1–8, Defendants agree to formally withdraw

the following MPD policy document: Memorandum No. 2009-28, “Traffic

Enforcement Policy,” Mar. 3, 2009. See Appendix B.

12. All MPD non-supervisory officers assigned to the patrol

bureau and engaged in patrol operations who conduct traffic stops, field

interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches shall wear body-

worn cameras.

13. MPD shall require that all patrol officers activate both body-

worn cameras and mobile digital video recording devices at the initiation

of any traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, or search, and

shall not deactivate the cameras until the encounter has concluded, with

specific exceptions to protect privacy rights as set forth in amended SOP

730–Mobile Digital Video Audio Recording Equipment, and amended SOP

747–Body Worn Camera. When a non-supervisory officer is transferred to

Page 10 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 10 of 53 Document 135

a patrol assignment, MPD shall ensure that the member is provided with equipment necessary to comply with this paragraph within three (3) weeks.
14. Defendants shall recruit, hire, and promote a diverse corps of police officers at all levels of the chain of command to reflect the diversity of Milwaukee communities. FPC will update the promotional testing procedures for positions subject to such testing to include questions and activities testing a candidate’s ability to lead and direct community policing efforts.
A. Data Collection and Publication 1. Defendants shall ensure that every traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search conducted by any member of the Milwaukee Police Department is documented in an electronic, digitized record regardless of the outcome of the encounter (e.g., citation, arrest, warning, or no action at all). 2. The electronic records concerning each traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search shall be documented in one of the following systems: the Traffic and Criminal Software (“TraCS”); the Records Management System (“RMS”); or the Computer Aided Dispatch (“CAD”) system. Defendants shall promulgate clear guidelines delineating the type(s) of encounter(s) (e.g., traffic stop leading to a traffic citation, traffic stop leading to no action, field interview leading to a warning) documented in each electronic database. Defendants shall ensure that:
a. all traffic stops are documented in TraCS; b. all field interviews are documented in RMS; c. all no-action encounters are documented in CAD; and
Page 11 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 11 of 53 Document 135

d. all frisks and searches are documented in either TraCS

or RMS as appropriate, based on the whether the

circumstances of the frisk or search are appropriately

characterized as a traffic stop or field interview.

Defendants shall make clear when duplicate records exist within or

between TraCS, RMS, and CAD.

3. Whether stored in TraCS, RMS, or CAD the electronic,

digitized record for each traffic stop, field interview, and no-action

encounter shall include all of the following information:

a. demographic information about the subject, including:

(i) age; (ii) gender; and (iii) race and ethnicity selected

from one or more categories in the following list:

American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, Black or

African American, Hispanic or Latino, Native

Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, and/or White;

i.

in RMS, TraCS, and CAD, compliance will

require maintenance or creation of “hard fields”

that will contain the demographic information

identified above, with the sole exception that

officers are not required to document the age of

the subject in no-action encounters recorded in

CAD;

b. the location of the stop, including the address and police district;
c. the date of the encounter; d. the start time of the encounter; e. a written narrative explaining the legal basis for the
stop, as follows:

Page 12 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 12 of 53 Document 135

i.

in RMS: textual entry into a narrative field;

ii.

in TraCS: textual entry into a narrative field;

iii.

in CAD: transcription of officer’s

communication with dispatch concerning basis

for the traffic stop into a narrative field;

f. whether a frisk (i.e., protective pat down) was

conducted and a written narrative of the legal basis

therefor;

g. whether a search beyond any frisk was conducted of

the person or his or her effects, and if so, a written

narrative explaining the legal basis therefor;

h. whether any contraband, including weapons, was

found during any frisk and/or search and if so, the type

of contraband seized, which shall be designated as

follows:

i.

in RMS: selection of one or more of the

following options from a drop-down menu:

“firearm weapon,” “non-firearm weapon,”

“drugs,” “stolen property,” “other,” and

“none”; and

ii.

in TraCS: selection of one or more of the

following options from the existing drop-down

menu: “illicit drug(s)/paraphernalia,”

“intoxicant(s),” “weapon(s)”; “evidence of a

crime,” “stolen goods,” “excessive cash,”

“other,” “none.”

i. whether the encounter resulted in a use of force, and if so, the type/level of force used and the stated justification for why the officer used force, with the

Page 13 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 13 of 53 Document 135

information captured in a Use of Force Report in the

Administrative Investigative Management System

(“AIM”) referencing the same CAD number as the

corresponding record in RMS (field interviews), TraCS

(traffic stops), or CAD (no-action encounters);

j. whether the encounter resulted in no law enforcement

action, a warning, citation, summons, or arrest, and if

so, the violations, offenses, or crimes alleged or

charged with the information captured as follows:

i.

in RMS, in a drop-down menu permitting

selection of one of the following options: “no

law enforcement action,” “citation,” “warning,”

“summons,” “arrest,” and “none”, and with a

description of the violations, offenses, or crimes

alleged or charged in a narrative field;

ii.

in TraCS, through documentation of traffic

stops leading to traffic citation, non-traffic

citation, or warning in the applicable TraCS

module, with a description of the violations,

offenses, or crimes alleged or charged in a

narrative field;

iii.

in CAD, the C-code outcome for “no action”

shall be documented in a field designated for

the inclusion of such information for no-action

encounters.

k. any relevant suspect description received by police prior to the encounter for any field interview documented in RMS only; and
l. the names and identifying numbers of all officers

Page 14 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 14 of 53 Document 135

actively involved on the scene during the encounter. Defendants shall ensure that each traffic stop, field interview, and no-action encounter documented pursuant to this paragraph—whether in RMS, TraCS, or CAD—is assigned a unique stop identification number.
4. A system will be created, if none currently exists, to ensure that all of the required information detailed in paragraph IV.A.3 is properly inputted into RMS, TraCS, and CAD.
a. For example, the user interface of RMS may be set up to require the entry of information detailed in subparagraphs IV.A.3(a), (c), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (j) into the electronic, digitized record in order for a traffic stop, field interview, or no-action encounter (and any frisks or searches conducted during the course of the encounter) to be documented in the system. If a user fails to submit a piece of required information (e.g., race of the traffic stop subject), the user interfaces of RMS shall prohibit submission of the record.
b. Alternatively, a separate script may be run on records submitted to the back end of each system every day in order to identify incomplete records and email officers and their supervisors to resubmit the forms when they are incomplete.
5. There shall be a unique identifier (i.e., primary key) that bridges TraCS, RMS, and CAD in order to permit analysis of all traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches of a specific individual regardless of the database in which the information is stored. For example, the unique identifier may consist of a name and date of birth.
Page 15 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 15 of 53 Document 135

Plaintiffs offer the assistance of data scientist Kathy Qian at no cost to Defendants to assist in the configuration of TraCS, RMS, and CAD so that a unique identifier is assigned to each subject of a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search documented in each data system (TraCS, RMS, and CAD).
6. There shall be an identifier that permits direct correlation between every traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search recorded in TraCS, RMS, and CAD and any video associated with the encounter, whether captured through police-vehicle video camera footage and/or officer body-worn camera footage. This data field may consist of a unique encounter identification number, for example, created through the date and time of the encounter.
7. The MPD database(s) of video footage from police-vehicle cameras and body-worn cameras shall be searchable by CAD number with video to be produced one incident at a time, with such searches available for both types of video within one year from the date of this Agreement. Video footage concerning traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches shall be easily and quickly made available to the Consultant upon request, and no later than seven (7) calendar days from the date of the request.
8. Defendants shall require that any MPD officer who conducts a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, or search complete and file a report or the information, including at least all of the information identified in paragraph IV.A.3, prior to the end of his or her tour of duty. If extenuating circumstances make that impossible, the report or information must be completed prior to end of the next tour of duty. Defendants shall require that, if multiple officers are involved in conducting a traffic stop,
Page 16 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 16 of 53 Document 135

field interview, no-action encounter, frisk or search, at least one officer shall complete said report.
9. Defendants shall prohibit MPD from collecting, storing, disseminating, and/or publishing personally identifiable information about an individual who has been subjected to a traffic stop, field interview, noaction encounter, frisk, and/or search in any criminal intelligence database (with the exception of TraCS and RMS) if that individual is released without further legal action, unless MPD documents specific facts supporting individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the individual is involved in criminal conduct or activity and the information is relevant to that criminal conduct or activity. See 28 C.F.R. §§ 23.3, 23.20. Defendants will not destroy properly documented records in TraCS and RMS.
10. Defendants shall ensure that MPD provides, on a quarterly basis, the electronic, digitized data on all traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and searches described in paragraph IV.A.3, with the exception of any personally identifiable information, to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Consultant. Defendants shall also provide explicit identification of primary keys, foreign keys, constraints, and indices in order to identify how the TraCS, RMS, and CAD datasets or tables link together and what types of duplicates can be expected. To the extent that any unique identifier (i.e., primary key) includes personally identifiable information, that unique key shall be transformed so that it is not readily readable.
11. Defendants shall ensure that MPD provides to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Consultant the manuals for police officer and supervisor use of TraCS, RMS, and CAD including examples aimed at
Page 17 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 17 of 53 Document 135

clarifying the procedure for inputting into each system all of the information identified in paragraph IV.A.3 about traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches recorded in the system.
12. Defendants shall ensure that MPD provides to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Consultant the codebooks and data dictionaries for users of TraCS, RMS, and CAD that clearly define every variable captured in records of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches, as well as all values that each variable can be assigned.
13. Defendants shall ensure that the FPC will publish on its website, on an annual basis, the electronic, digitized data on all traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches described in paragraphs IV.A.1–3, with the exception of any personally identifiable information. The FPC will also post on its website any and all reports published by the Consultant pursuant to the Agreement.
B. Training 1. Defendants shall review and revise if necessary training materials for officers and supervisors on the policies, procedures, and constitutional requirements for conducting a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search, and the ways that race, ethnicity, national origin, and other characteristics identified in revised SOP 001 can and cannot properly be used. See Appendix A. All training sessions for MPD officers and supervisors on these standards shall be taught by an instructor qualified under Wisconsin law in the following specified areas:
a. Defendants shall adopt procedures to ensure that all officers are able to articulate, verbally and in writing, the constitutional standards for individualized,
Page 18 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 18 of 53 Document 135

objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion and probable cause in conducting a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search, and will provide appropriate remedial training where any officer is unable to do so. MPD will develop a training bulletin for all MPD officers reinforcing the requirements for a traffic stop, field interview, noaction encounter, and frisk, including with respect to establishing reasonable suspicion for the stop, field interview, or any frisk, which shall be reinforced through roll call training conducted by supervisors. b. Defendants shall continue the training begun in 2013 in fair and impartial policing through a program developed by Lorie Fridell, Ph.D and A. T. Laszlo. Plaintiffs shall review the substance of this training program within six (6) months of the execution of this Agreement and shall suggest revisions or additions to this training program. Said suggestions are to be incorporated into the training program only upon the approval of the aforementioned program developers, or by similarly-qualified individuals retained for that purpose by MPD. Similarly qualified individuals will include certified MPD trainers trained by Fridell or Laszlo. Similarly qualified individuals will also include trainers trained by Fridell or Laszlo, retained by MPD.
Page 19 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 19 of 53 Document 135

c. Defendants and/or the trainers shall include testing or other mechanisms to ensure the content of the training is learned by participating MPD staff.
d. MPD will require and train supervisors to ensure accuracy of traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search records documented pursuant to this Agreement, and to regularly review and analyze such records for patterns of individual officer, unit, and squad conduct to identify at an early stage trends and potential bias-based behaviors, including but not limited to racial and ethnic profiling and racial and ethnic disparities in the rates of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks made without sufficient legal justification. Supervisors will be provided training developed by Lorie Fridell, Ph.D and A. T. Laszlo on identifying trends and patterns that give rise to potentially biased practices regarding traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches of people and vehicles. Such training will be delivered by qualified individuals, who may include certified MPD trainers trained by Fridell or Laszlo, or by other certified trainers trained by Fridell or Laszlo and retained by MPD. Such training will be consistent with the aforementioned training on fair and impartial policing.
2. Within twelve (12) months of the execution of this Agreement, and on an annual basis thereafter, MPD shall provide training for all MPD
Page 20 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 20 of 53 Document 135

staff who conduct, supervise, document in TraCS, RMS, or CAD, and/or audit traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. If Defendants show good cause for the need for an additional six (6) months to complete this training, Plaintiffs will not unreasonably withhold agreement to such an extension. The topics of such annual training should include, but not be limited to:
a. the MPD databases (TraCS, RMS, and CAD) containing the information identified in paragraph IV.A.3 on all traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches;
b. what information about each traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, as well as frisks and searches conducted in the course of those encounters, must be documented in TraCS, RMS, and/or CAD;
c. documentation and reporting responsibilities of officers who conduct traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and searches; and
d. how to retrieve data on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches from TraCS, RMS, and CAD in order to review encounter reports for evidence of compliance with constitutional standards, this Agreement, and MPD policies concerning the conduct of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches.
3. All training materials developed and/or approved by Defendants to comply with paragraphs IV.B.1 and IV.B.2 of this Agreement
Page 21 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 21 of 53 Document 135

shall be provided to Plaintiffs within six (6) months of the execution of this Agreement for review.
4. Plaintiffs shall: a. review all training materials developed and/or approved by Defendants to comply with paragraphs IV.B.1 and IV.B.2, and recommend any revisions necessary to make such training more effective; and b. observe training sessions identified in paragraph IV.B.2 to ensure that the training complies with the requirements of this Agreement and promotes the goals of lawful traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. Defendants shall provide the training calendar to Plaintiffs as soon as it is available. Plaintiffs will make every effort to attend in-service training sessions within the first two (2) weeks and will do so no later than the first month that such training is provided. Two observers on behalf of Plaintiffs shall be allowed to observe any training related to this Agreement. In the event that an observer witnesses and documents training that is not consistent with the requirements of this Agreement, Plaintiffs are to bring any such deficiency to the prompt attention of Defendants. Defendants shall then be allowed to correct the erroneous training within three (3) months. In the event that the Defendants fail to do this, Plaintiffs may seek a remedial order from the Court and the Defendants shall be liable for all
Page 22 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 22 of 53 Document 135

reasonable fees and expenses connected to any such motion. 5. MPD shall have state-certified instructors, certified in the pertinent areas and employed at the MPD Academy, provide the training and re-training of officers and supervisors on the conduct, documentation, and supervision of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. C. Supervision 1. Within six (6) months of the execution of this Agreement, MPD shall establish and enforce policies requiring continuous supervision of officers who conduct traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches by appropriate, specified officers within the MPD. Defendants shall provide for supervision in the following manner and within the following timeframes: a. All reports of arrests, which are documented in the RMS system, will be reviewed and approved by a supervisor within the time period prescribed by SOP 263–Records Management. The supervisor will review the reports for various matters, including the lawful basis for any traffic stop or field interview that led to the arrest, and the lawful basis for any frisk or search conducted during the encounter. b. Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD will achieve a practice of supervisory review, correction, and approval of 50% of all documentation of field interviews in RMS consistent with the timeframes set forth in SOP 085.20.
Page 23 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 23 of 53 Document 135

Supervisors shall review for completeness, and shall review the stated basis for the field interview and any frisk and/or search conducted in the course of the field interview. Prior to approving reports for submission to RMS, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented. c. Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD will achieve supervisory review, correction, and approval of every warning and citation issued by MPD officers in the course of a traffic stop or field interview, as recorded in TraCS within seven (7) days, consistent with the timeframe set forth in SOP 070. Supervisors shall review for completeness, and shall review the stated basis for the traffic stop, field interview, and any frisk and/or search conducted in the course of the traffic stop or field interview. Prior to approving reports for submission to TraCS, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented. d. Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD shall achieve supervisory review, correction, and approval of every no-action encounter documented in CAD within fourteen (14) days. Supervisors shall review for completeness and shall review the stated basis for the no-action encounter.
Page 24 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 24 of 53 Document 135

Prior to approving reports as complete, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented. Defendants shall require MPD supervisors to use the aforementioned data to identify and document any non-compliance by subordinate officers with constitutional standards and policy guidelines concerning the conduct and documentation of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches, including SOP 085, SOP 070, SOP 001, SOP 300, and this Agreement. 2. Defendants shall require MPD supervisors to counsel, train, or to refer for re-training, any officer who is found through supervisory review to have engaged in an unreasonable, race-or ethnicity-based, unreported, or insufficiently documented traffic stop, field interview, noaction encounter, frisk, or search. Retraining, when appropriate, will be performed in accordance with SOP 082–Training and Career Development. 3. Defendants shall require MPD command staff to counsel, train, or to refer for re-training, any supervisor (e.g., sergeant or lieutenant) who is found through supervisory review to have failed to properly review and correct patrol officers who conduct an unreasonable, race- or ethnicitybased, unreported, or insufficiently documented traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, or search, or to properly refer such officers to counseling, training, or re-training. Appropriately qualified trainers from the Police Academy shall provide such re-training to the officer within thirty (30) days of such a finding. Every six (6) months, Internal Affairs will prepare a report for command staff of allegations of policy violations described above and any corrective actions taken.
Page 25 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 25 of 53 Document 135

4. MPD will update the performance review process to ensure that it includes matters relating to compliance with legal requirements concerning traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches.
5. Defendants shall continue the changes to the purpose and content of command staff meetings, including discussion and evaluation of community policing measures.
6. MPD shall complete a twice per year community policing status report and forward that report to the FPC.
D. Procedures for Complaints from Members of the Public and Internally Generated Complaints Concerning MPD Conduct
1. Defendants shall amend SOP 450 on Personnel Investigations in order to improve procedures for initiating and investigating complaints from members of the public and internally generated complaints about MPD conduct, including traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches, and to foster transparency concerning the subject matter of complaints, the process for investigating complaints, and the resolution of complaints. Pursuant to these amendments:
a. Defendants shall make complaint forms for members of the public and instructions describing the separate processes for filing complaints with the MPD and FPC available in English, Spanish, Hmong, and other languages as the Parties may determine appropriate;
b. Defendants shall continue to ensure that complaint forms for members of the public and instructions are available for download from the MPD and FPC
Page 26 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 26 of 53 Document 135

websites and are available, at a minimum, at all Milwaukee public libraries and police district stations; c. Defendants shall accept all complaints received from members of the public, whether submitted in person, by phone, by mail, or via email, or by any other means, and will work to develop online submission via the MPD and/or FPC websites to further facilitate the complaint process; d. Defendants shall ensure that supervisors are trained on their responsibilities under the new policy requiring acceptance of all complaints from members of the public. Defendants shall ensure that all MPD and FPC staff who accept complaints are trained not to, and in practice do not, discourage the filing of any complaint from a member of the public; e. Defendants shall not require that complaints from members of the public be notarized, but may require verification of identity at some appropriate time in the complaint proceedings, subsequent to an initial review of the complaint, to ensure that a complaint is not being filed simply for harassment or other similarly inappropriate reasons; f. Defendants shall maintain MPD’s practice of requiring a supervisor to contact the complainant pursuant to SOP 450.35(A)(1) and (2); g. Defendants shall ensure that any Personnel Investigation stemming from a civilian complaint shall
Page 27 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 27 of 53 Document 135

involve an interview of the complainant and that the interview will take place at a location other than police headquarters, provided that the complainant can be located with reasonable efforts and, with respect to the location, except as to any complainant who is in custody of law enforcement authorities at the time of taking any such interview. If a person wishes or voluntarily agrees to be interviewed at a police facility, the interview may take place there. h. MPD shall: (1) develop a protocol specifying an appropriate time frame for investigations of complaints by members of the public to be completed, and hold investigators and supervisors accountable for that time frame; (2) require supervisory review and approval for investigations open beyond ninety (90) days and every thirty (30) days thereafter; (3) develop specific guidelines and a checklist of requirements, including requirements for case file contents and the components of the investigative process; and (4) ensure that all plausible complaints are investigated; i. Defendants shall ensure that MPD Internal Affairs investigators undergo training that addresses, and attempts to eliminate, biases in favor of police officers and against civilian complainants that arise in the course of complaint investigations; and j. Defendants shall prohibit investigators from conducting investigations in a manner that may reflect
Page 28 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 28 of 53 Document 135

biases against complainants, including asking hostile questions to complainants; applying moral judgments related to the dress, grooming, income, life-style, or known or perceived criminal history of complainants; giving testimony by officers greater weight than testimony by complainants; providing summary reports that disadvantage complainants and are unrelated to facts developed in the investigation; issuing complaint dispositions that are not justified by the facts developed in the investigation; recommending inconsistent discipline for officer misconduct. 2. MPD Internal Affairs investigators shall receive special training conducted within one (1) year from the execution of this Agreement in the investigation of complaints by members of the public, including training on the amendments to SOP 450 required by this Agreement. The training shall be conducted by a supervisor of Internal Affairs with expertise in complaint investigation and shall be consistent with those provisions of this Agreement that relate to this subject. 3. Defendants shall ensure that the MPD Internal Affairs Division: a. Receives all complaints from members of the public for review and determination for appropriate assignment; and b. Reviews every internally generated complaint about MPD conduct.
Page 29 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 29 of 53 Document 135

4. Defendants shall ensure that the MPD: a. Maintains and enforces its policies requiring that an MPD supervisor or a member of the MPD Internal Affairs Division reviews and investigates every plausible complaint; b. Continues to maintain a database that includes all civilian and internally-generated complaints concerning MPD conduct received by the MPD, which includes for each complaint: the complainant’s name, address, and other contact information; the complainant’s race and ethnicity; the date, time, and location of the incident; the name of the officer who is the subject of the complaint; and the nature of the complaint, including whether it concerns a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and/or search, and/or an allegation of racial or ethnic profiling; c. Maintains a list of the number and outcome of complaints received against each officer, regardless of the outcome of the complaint (which should be readily accessible through the AIM system); d. Maintains the practice of the Early Intervention Program providing notice to captains of an individual officer receiving three or more complaints within a ninety (90)-day period, and also provides notice to captains of any individual officer receiving three (3) or more complaints over a rolling one (1) year period; and
Page 30 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 30 of 53 Document 135

e. Ensures that complaint data are tabulated by citywide, district, unit, and peer groupings to help supervisors understand overall employee performance and the specific factors at issue within their district to allow for active and engaged supervision.
5. Defendants shall ensure that the FPC: a. Maintains the FPC practice of investigating all plausible complaints from members of the public submitted to it; b. Reviews every internally generated complaint about MPD conduct; c. Creates and maintains a database of complaints from members of the public and internally-generated complaints about MPD conduct received by the FPC, which includes for each complaint: the complainant’s name, address and other contact information; the complainant’s race and ethnicity; the date, time, and location of the incident; the name of the officer who is the subject of the complaint; and the nature of the complaint, including whether it concerns a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and/or search, and/or an allegation of racial or ethnic profiling; d. Maintains a list of the number of complaints received against each officer, regardless of the outcome of the complaint; and
Page 31 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 31 of 53 Document 135

e. Provides to the Chief for further action, as discussed in this Agreement, the name of any officer receiving more than the same number of complaints within the same timeframe as set out in the Early Intervention Program, as discussed in paragraph IV.D.4.d.
E. Audits 1. Defendant FPC shall audit data, dashboard camera footage, and body camera footage on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches, every six (6) months to identify:
a. Officers who fail to conduct these encounters in compliance with constitutional standards and principles set forth in this Agreement;
b. Officers who fail to properly document these encounters in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;
c. Supervisors who fail to properly review subordinate officers’ reports to identify officers who fail to conduct traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and/or searches in compliance with constitutional standards and this Agreement, or to ensure that the encounters are properly documented in compliance with the terms of this Agreement; and
d. Supervisors who fail to require re-training and/or discipline for subordinate officers who conduct unreasonable, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters.
Page 32 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 32 of 53 Document 135

2. In order to ensure that complaints from members of the public are appropriately investigated, the FPC, including through the work of any retained consultants, shall conduct an audit every six (6) months of: (a) complaints submitted by members of the public to the MPD, and (b) complaints from members of the public to the FPC.
3. Defendant FPC shall be permitted to spend funds appropriated by Defendant Milwaukee to hire additional staff and/or employ experts or consultants to conduct the audits described in paragraphs IV.E.1 and 2. The Consultant also shall review such audits for accuracy and, if the Consultant concludes that the audits are incomplete or inaccurate, conduct its own audits of these matters. In addition, the Consultant shall provide training and technical assistance to Defendant FPC to develop the FPC’s capacity to conduct such reviews and audits itself, in order to be able to fully and appropriately exercise its oversight obligations.
4. Defendant FPC shall use audits to, inter alia, identify officers who need additional training on traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search policies and/or discipline for the conduct of unreasonable, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters. Defendants shall ensure that data and findings from the FPC audits described in paragraphs IV.E.1. and IV.E.2 shall be incorporated into the MPD’s AIM System, which is a database software program used to identify MPD member performance for the purpose of evaluation.
5. Defendant FPC shall publish on its website, on a quarterly basis, data on civilian complaints received, under investigation, or resolved during the previous quarter, including the number of complaints from members of the public broken down by number relating to traffic stops,
Page 33 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 33 of 53 Document 135

field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches without legal justification and traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches based on race or ethnicity and whether the complaints remain open or have been closed.
6. Defendants shall ensure that the appropriate division within MPD audits data, dashboard camera footage, and body camera footage on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches every six (6) months to identify:
a. Officers who fail to conduct these activities in compliance with constitutional standards and principles set forth in this Agreement;
b. Officers who fail to properly document these encounters in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;
c. Supervisors who fail to properly review subordinate officers’ reports to identify officers who fail to conduct traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches in compliance with constitutional standards and this Agreement, or to ensure that the encounters are properly documented in compliance with the terms of this Agreement; and
d. Supervisors who fail to require re-training and/or discipline for subordinate officers who conduct unreasonable, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters.
7. Defendants shall ensure that the MPD Internal Affairs Division uses audits to, inter alia, identify officers who need additional
Page 34 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 34 of 53 Document 135

training on traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search policies and/or discipline for the conduct of unreasonable, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters. Defendants shall ensure that data and findings from the audits described in paragraphs IV.E.6 and IV.E.7 shall be incorporated into the MPD’s Early Intervention Program.
F. Counseling, Re-training, and Discipline 1. MPD will develop and maintain a system of benchmarks and alert notification triggers for any employee involved in three (3) incidents of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches that are insufficiently documented, legally unsupported, or based on racial or ethnic profiling over a rolling one (1)-year period. 2. Defendants understand that racial and ethnic profiling, and unlawful and inadequately-documented traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, and frisks are a serious violation of the MPD rules and may subject the offending officer to progressive discipline, including counseling, retraining, suspension, or discharge as appropriate and consistent with the criteria of Wis. Stat. § 62.50. 3. Defendants shall ensure that discipline must occur when there is a sustained allegation that any MPD officer has conducted a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, or frisk that lacks the requisite reasonable suspicion and/or is the result of racial or ethnic profiling, or has failed to report or insufficiently document a traffic stop, field interview, noaction encounter or frisk, with such disciplinary measures progressing in severity as the number of such sustained violations increases. Nothing in this Agreement precludes imposition of greater or additional discipline when the Chief determines such discipline is appropriate.
Page 35 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 35 of 53 Document 135

4. Defendants shall amend SOP 450 to confirm that the matters described in paragraph IV.F.3 above are serious violations and to provide that any traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, and/or frisk conducted without the requisite legal basis or demonstrating an indication of racial or ethnic profiling shall be dealt with in a manner that is consistent with the criteria of Wis. Stat. § 62.50 and paragraph IV.F.3 above.
5. MPD shall maintain those pertinent SOPs that require officers to adhere to the laws of the United States, the State of Wisconsin, and the City of Milwaukee. MPD shall through training make clear to its officers that among these responsibilities are the responsibilities to conduct traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks and searches in a lawful manner and that an officer who fails to do so may be subject to appropriate measures, including counseling, additional training, discipline or discharge.
6. An MPD supervisor who fails to properly supervise a subordinate officer to ensure that traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches comply with constitutional standards, are properly reported, and are sufficiently documented, including through the review of the subordinate officer’s electronic reports concerning these encounters, may be subject to a Personnel Investigation and any resulting counseling, retraining, and/or discipline, including the possibility of termination.
7. Defendants shall require MPD supervisors to refer for investigation any officer identified through supervisory review to have engaged in four (4) or more traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, or searches that are unsupported by the requisite reasonable suspicion or probable cause, are not properly reported, or are
Page 36 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 36 of 53 Document 135

insufficiently documented in a three (3)-year period. Such investigation shall be conducted by the MPD Internal Affairs Division, or by the commanding officer of the district, under the supervision of the MPD Internal Affairs Division.
8. MPD shall maintain and enforce its Code of Conduct which provides that officers can face discipline for failing to familiarize themselves with department policies and also provides for progressive discipline; such enforcement will specifically include instances where an officer has been found to have engaged in unlawful traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks and/or searches; instances in which an officer has failed to document properly traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and/or searches; and instances in which a supervisor has failed to identify and refer for counseling, retraining, or discipline officers who fail to comply with traffic stop, field interview, noaction encounter, frisk, and search documentation and conduct requirements set forth in this Agreement and in a manner that is consistent with the criteria of Wis. Stat. § 62.50. Defendants acknowledge that unlawful and inadequately-documented traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and/or searches are a serious violation of the MPD rules.
9. In determining the appropriate resolution and/or discipline to be imposed following any Personnel Investigation, the number, nature, and resolution of civilian and internally generated complaints against an officer shall be considered.
G. Community Engagement 1. Defendants shall ensure that the MPD monthly crime and safety meetings, which MPD already conducts, will include on their
Page 37 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 37 of 53 Document 135

agendas in all districts concerns, if they are raised, about the MPD’s actions, including but not limited to policies and practices concerning traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks.
2. Defendants shall maintain the existing Milwaukee Collaborative Community Committee to seek community input on police department operations to improve trust between law enforcement and city residents. Defendants shall consult with Plaintiffs regarding any changes in or additions to the membership of this group. Defendants shall make reasonable efforts to ensure that the membership in this committee represents racially and ethnically diverse communities, persons with disabilities, LGBTQ persons, and other protected classes.
3. Any revision of MPD policies or written procedures relating to traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and the enforcement of low-level offenses shall be addressed in the manner prescribed by FPC Rule IV, Board Procedure, a copy of which is attached hereto as Appendix C. V. COMPLIANCE
1. To achieve compliance with this Agreement, the MPD must demonstrate that it has:
a. incorporated all substantive requirements of this Agreement into policy;
b. hired and trained relevant personnel as necessary to fulfill their responsibilities pursuant to the requirements;
c. appropriated sufficient funds to ensure that such requirements are met; and
Page 38 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 38 of 53 Document 135

d. shown sustained and continuing improvement in

constitutional policing based on:

i.

analysis of TraCS data demonstrating that

fewer than 14% of records of traffic stops, frisks,

and searches documented in TraCS during the

previous six (6) months are missing any of the

information required by paragraph IV.A.3 for

inclusion in records;

ii.

analysis of RMS data demonstrating that fewer

than 14% of records of field interviews, frisks,

and searches documented in RMS during the

previous six (6) months are missing any of the

information required by paragraph IV.A.3 for

inclusion in records;

iii.

analysis of CAD data demonstrating that fewer

than 14% records of no-action encounters

documented in CAD during the previous six (6)

months are missing any of the information

required by paragraph IV.A.3 for inclusion in

records;

iv.

analysis of TraCS data on traffic stops

demonstrates that fewer than 15% of traffic stop

records documented during the previous six (6)

months fail to show that the stops were

supported by individualized, objective, and

articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity or a traffic or vehicle equipment

violation;

v.

analysis of RMS data on field interviews

demonstrates that fewer than 15% of field

interview records documented during the

previous six (6) months fail to show that the

field interviews were supported by

Page 39 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 39 of 53 Document 135

individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal activity or a traffic or vehicle equipment violation;

vi.

analysis of CAD data on no-action encounters

demonstrates that fewer than 15% of records

documented during the previous six (6) months

fail to show that the traffic stops and encounters

were supported by individualized, objective,

and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal

activity or a traffic or vehicle equipment

violation;

vii.

analysis of TraCS and RMS data on frisks

demonstrates that fewer than 15% of frisks

records documented during the previous six (6)

months fail to show that the frisks were

supported by individualized, objective, and

articulable reasonable suspicion that the stop

subject was armed and dangerous;

viii.

analysis of TraCS data on traffic stops

demonstrates that there is no significant racial

or ethnic disparity in the rate at which Black and

white people, and Latino and white people, are

subjected to traffic stops after controlling for

agreed upon benchmarks;

ix.

analysis of RMS data on demonstrates that there

is no significant racial or ethnic disparity in the

rate at which Black and white people, and

Latino and white people, are subjected to field

interviews after controlling for agreed upon

benchmarks; and

x.

analysis of CAD data on no-action encounters

demonstrates that there is no significant racial

or ethnic disparity in the rate at which Black and

Page 40 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 40 of 53 Document 135

white people, and Latino and white people, are subjected to no-action encounters after controlling for agreed upon benchmarks.
Compliance must be maintained for the time periods set forth below with the sole exception that Plaintiffs agree not to seek contempt sanctions should Defendants be unable to meet the numerical thresholds identified above within the first two (2) years of enforcement of this Agreement. The Parties agree, however, that Defendants shall work towards meeting these numerical standards as quickly as possible. Non-compliance with mere technicalities, or temporary or isolated failure to comply during a period of otherwise sustained compliance, will not constitute failure to achieve or maintain full compliance. At the same time, temporary compliance during a period of otherwise sustained noncompliance will not constitute compliance with this Agreement.
2. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Agreement and the Parties’ obligations hereunder.
3. In determining whether Defendants are in compliance with constitutional standards concerning traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches and with the terms of this Agreement, the Court may consider, among other factors:
a. The number, nature, and location of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks that do not comply with Fourth Amendment standards, disaggregated by the race and ethnicity of the subject;
b. All information regarding the legal basis provided for traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters,
Page 41 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 41 of 53 Document 135

frisks, and searches, the resultant “hit-rates,” including rates of contraband seizures, and information resulting from audits and surveys conducted by the Parties; c. Racial and ethnic disparities in stops, frisks, and searches, after accounting, under professionally established statistical methods, for factors other than race and ethnicity as described in paragraph V.A.5 below. A. Role of the Consultant 1. The Consultant shall provide the Parties with a written Report on an annual basis. The Report shall address Defendants’ compliance with the terms of this Agreement based on: (a) the Consultant’s annual review of MPD and FPC actions to determine whether they have timely completed tasks identified in this Agreement pertaining to policy formulation, data collection and reporting, training, supervision, the complaint process, discipline, and audits; (2) annual analysis of: MPD data on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks, including encounter-level data and aggregate data. Should the Consultant find that the Defendants are non-compliant with any of the requirements of this Agreement, the Consultant shall submit a report within six (6) months determining whether Defendants have rectified the issue(s). 2. In preparing any Report, the Consultant may solicit reports and input from the Parties and community members through customary means of public notice employed by the FPC, including its website and an opt-in email distribution list including members of the public who are participating in the ongoing process, managed by the City, FPC, and MPD, to elicit public input concerning MPD reforms related to the proposed
Page 42 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 42 of 53 Document 135

recommendations by the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Nothing in this paragraph shall prohibit the Parties from providing reports and input for the Consultant’s consideration and the Consultant shall consider any such reports and input provided by the Parties when putting together a Report. Any reports and input provided by the Parties to the Consultant shall be provided at the same time to the opposing Party’s counsel.
3. To measure Defendants’ compliance with the Fourth Amendment in conducting traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks, the Consultant will review randomly selected electronic incident reports concerning these encounters documented pursuant to paragraphs IV.A.1–IV.A.3 on an appropriate basis, as determined by the Consultant, but no less often than semiannually. The following procedures will be used.
a. Defendants shall ensure that the randomly selected electronic incident reports do not contain more than a single incident report concerning a particular policecivilian encounter. Where multiple people are stopped and/or frisked in one encounter, only one of these stops will be part of the randomly selected files for review.
b. In each semi-annual review, the Consultant will screen the reported stops and frisks to separate out (1) “stops” that are either arrests at the location of the stop or are otherwise not forcible stops under the Fourth Amendment and (2) “frisks” that are searches (often incident to arrest). In these cases, officers have filed reports even though the incident was not within the
Page 43 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 43 of 53 Document 135

definition of a “traffic stop,” “field interview,” “noaction encounter,” or “frisk” as set forth in this Agreement. These incidents will not be included in the Fourth Amendment “reasonable suspicion” analysis. c. The category of “fruit of an illegal stop” will be used to signify where a frisk, though proper given the officer’s observations, was made pursuant to a traffic stop or field interview conducted without reasonable suspicion. d. The Consultant shall conduct an analysis involving the tabulation of “hits” (i.e., the finding of weapons or contraband) to the number of frisks, disaggregated by race and ethnicity. e. There will be a designation of cases in which an officer marks “no frisk” and “no search” in cases in which a frisk or search was highly likely to have occurred (e.g., stop for a robbery investigation). 4. To measure Defendants’ compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment in conducting traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters and frisks, the Consultant will engage in several different analyses. 5. Regression Analysis Regarding Traffic Stops, Field Interviews, NoAction Encounters, and Frisks: The Consultant will compare actual traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter and frisk rates by police district to those that would be expected based on census data, or other similarlyreliable and available data, on the racial composition for that police district. This analysis will use race-specific and ethnicity-specific data comparing
Page 44 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 44 of 53 Document 135

traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks and the census population by race and ethnicity. To determine the impact of suspect race and suspect ethnicity on the likelihood of a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, or frisk, this analysis will control for factors that include the demography and crime rates of the police district. A multivariate regression analysis will be used to assess the relationship among multiple variables simultaneously. The following regressions will be used, with the dependent variable of “rate of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks”:
a. Subject race; b. Subject race, Latino status; c. Subject race, Latino status, sex; d. Subject race, Latino status, sex, age; e. Subject race, Latino status, sex, age, district racial
composition; f. Subject race, Latino status, sex, age, district racial
composition, district age composition; g. Subject race, Latino status, sex, age, district racial
composition, district age composition, district employment rate; h. Subject race, Latino status, sex, age, district racial composition, district age composition, district employment rate, district crime rate; i. Subject race, Latino status, sex, age, district racial composition, district age composition, district employment rate, district violent crime rate; and
Page 45 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 45 of 53 Document 135

j. Subject race, Latino status, sex, age, district racial composition, district age composition, district employment rate, district property crime rate.
6. Regression Analysis Regarding Reasonable Suspicion: The Consultant shall conduct the same set of regressions described in paragraph V.A.5 where the dependent variable is whether there was reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounters, or frisk. Since this variable is available only for the sample of the data that has been analyzed for reasonable suspicion pursuant to paragraph V.A.3, it will contain a smaller number of observations than the regressions described above in paragraph V.A.3.
7. Hit-Rate Analysis: a. The Consultant shall conduct a hit-rate analysis to determine possible effects of race and ethnicity in traffic stops, field interviews, and frisks. For example, because individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and dangerous justifies a frisk, one type of hit rate that can be calculated is the share of frisks that result in the discovery of a weapon being discovered. If hit-rates (e.g., rate of weapons seizure) for white people are higher than for Black people, there is a question as to whether the police are employing different thresholds for reasonable suspicion to people of different races. b. The Consultant shall conduct hit-rate analysis at the police-district level to test for the possibility that traffic stops, field interviews, or frisks may be higher for all
Page 46 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 46 of 53 Document 135

people in heavily minority neighborhoods. In this

analysis, there will be calculations of the police-district

level traffic stop, field interview, and frisk rates per

rates of reported crimes to determine whether these

ratios are correlated with police-district racial

demographics. The question in this context is whether,

for example, there is a possible racial effect of stop and

frisk practices if the crime rate in District One is five

times the crime rate in District Two, but the stop rate is

10 times higher in District One. Should the Consultant

determine that TraCS traffic crash data is to be

considered in the analysis following consultation with

the Parties’ and their experts, such data shall be

provided by Defendants to the Consultant and

Plaintiffs’ Counsel.

8. The following protocols will be followed in the regression

analyses described in paragraphs V.A.5 and V.A.6:

a. The police district will be the geographical areas for

data analysis. Defendants will provide Plaintiffs and

the Consultant with the relevant police district

population data.

b. Crime rates will be measured by the incidence of crime

per relevant population (using lagged data, i.e., the

crime rate from the previous Quarter or Year).

i.

Defendants shall ensure that the Consultant

and Plaintiffs’ counsel are provided with crime

data agreed upon by the Parties. At a

Page 47 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 47 of 53 Document 135

minimum, Defendants shall make available crime data for the preceding year, including reported crimes, committed crimes, type of crime, police district of crime, and suspect race if known.
c. Economic and social data will be used as controls. The Parties shall endeavor to reach agreement about the economic and social factors used as controls. To the extent that there are differences in the economic and social regression factors used by each side, and to the degree there appear to be different conclusions based on different factors, the Parties’ experts will determine which are the most relevant and reliable.
d. The Consultant may perform “robustness” checks beyond the regression analysis set forth above, and shall confer as to their usefulness.
e. The Consultant shall determine whether any differences in the racial and ethnic data analyzed in paragraphs V.A.5 and V.A.6 are statistically significant and meaningful. i. If the effect of race or ethnicity is not statistically significant, it means that the effect of race or ethnicity is lower than the ability of the regression to detect. This relates to the power of the regression, which is affected by the sample size. If the sample size is large enough, a statistically insignificant coefficient indicates that the difference by race is statistically indistinguishable from zero (i.e., no race effect)
Page 48 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 48 of 53 Document 135

to a high degree of accuracy. Regression analysis provides measures for determining statistically significant racial and ethnic disparities and in the social sciences, the standard significance threshold for the likelihood of finding the same result is 95%, which corresponds to a p-value of .05. For some of the benchmarks, including analysis of gross rates of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks with regression for salient factors, there is no need for sampling as all of this data is available in the electronic databases (TraCS, RMS, and CAD) described in paragraph IV.A.1–6. ii. Even if the coefficient on race or ethnicity is statistically significant, the magnitude may be so small that it is not meaningful.
9. The Consultant shall issue the first Draft Report no later than twelve (12) months after entry of this Agreement, and this Draft Report shall address the period of the preceding twelve (12) months.
a. The Parties shall have thirty (30) days to serve each other and the Consultant with any objections to the Consultant’s Draft Report.
b. The Consultant shall have thirty (30) days to make any revisions to the Draft Report following receipt of the Parties’ objections.
c. The Parties and the Consultant will not make public any Draft Report during the sixty (60)-day time period prescribed in paragraphs V.A.9.a. and V.A.9.b., above.
Page 49 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 49 of 53 Document 135

d. The Consultant’s Final Report shall be filed with the Court and made publicly available on the FPC website.
10. Defendants shall provide the Consultant with data, documents, analysis, and information requested by the Consultant in the preparation of Reports, including, but not limited to, electronic data on crime rates, police deployment, and MPD traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, and frisks, including all of the data identified in paragraph IV.A.3.
11. The Consultant may seek the advice and assistance of police practices experts and statistical experts in formulating the Reports. Defendants shall compensate the Consultant for any experts retained by the Consultant for their professional services and reasonable expenses. VI. FEES AND COSTS
1. Defendant Milwaukee shall pay the reasonable costs and fees of the Consultant.
2. Defendant Milwaukee shall pay reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs to Plaintiffs’ counsel and their experts for time spent to date on investigating and litigating this case. Counsel for Defendant Milwaukee agrees to recommend the payment of $1,900,000 for the total amount of Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs herein.
3. Any disputes over fees and costs, including the reasonableness thereof, shall be submitted to the Court for adjudication in accordance with 42 U.S.C. § 1988. VII. TIME PERIOD
1. Defendants shall comply with the terms of this Agreement for a minimum of five (5) years.
Page 50 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 50 of 53 Document 135

2. If Plaintiffs’ counsel finds or reasonably believes that any Defendant is not in substantial compliance with any term of this Agreement, Plaintiffs’ counsel shall bring the issue to the attention of Defendants’ counsel prior to filing a motion seeking appropriate relief with the Court. VIII. MISCELLANEOUS
1. Defendants agree to develop any comprehensive and agencywide policies and procedures that are necessary to ensure consistency with, and full implementation of, this Agreement. Unless otherwise noted, Defendants agree that all policies, procedures, and manuals shall be developed within six (6) months of the effective date.
2. No amendments of this Agreement will be valid unless made in writing and signed by all of the signatories hereto.
3. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, with the same effect as if the signatures thereto were on the same instrument. Each signatory to the Agreement may execute this agreement by telefax or email of a scanned copy of the signature page, which shall have the same force and effect as if executed on an original copy.
4. The Parties further agree to cooperate fully and to execute any and all supplementary documents and to take all additional actions that may be necessary or appropriate to give full force and effect to the basic terms and intent of this Agreement.
5. If, after the date hereof, any provision of this Agreement is held to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.
Page 51 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 51 of 53 Document 135

6. It is the intent of the signatories that no part of this Agreement is to be presumptively construed either against or in favor of any signatory because of the identity of the drafter.
7. Paragraph headings contained herein are for purposes of organization only and do not constitute a part of this Agreement.
8. Any communications or notices to be provided to legal counsel for the Parties pursuant to this Agreement will be sent in writing via email or addressed, via commercial overnight delivery service, to the attention of the persons identified below (or as the signatories may subsequently direct in writing).
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement and understanding between and among the signatories with respect to the subject matter hereof and supersedes all other prior or contemporaneous oral agreements, understandings, undertakings and negotiations of the Parties.
It is so agreed. Counsel for Plaintiffs:

_________________________________________ Nusrat J. Choudhury American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel. (212) 519-7876 nchoudhury@aclu.org

7-12-18 Date

_________________________________________ Jason Williamson American Civil Liberties Union Foundation 125 Broad Street, 17th Floor New York, NY 10004 Tel. (212) 549-7340 jwilliamson@aclu.org

7-12-18 Date

Page 52 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 52 of 53 Document 135

________________________________________

Karyn L. Rotker

Date

American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin Foundation

207 East Buffalo Street, Suite 325

Milwaukee, WI 53202

Tel. (414) 272-4032

7-13-18

Covington & Burling LLP 850 Tenth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 Tel. (202) 662-6515 sdingle@cov.com
Counsel for Defendants:

7-11-18 Date

Room 800 Milwaukee, WI 53202 Tel. (414) 286-2601 glangl@milwaukee.gov
The foregoing be and the same is hereby APPROVED and ORDERED by the Court; and
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall administratively close this action.
Dated at Milwaukee, Wisconsin, this 23rd day of July, 2018. BY THE COURT:
____________________________________ J. P. Stadtmueller U.S. District Judge
Page 53 of 53 Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 53 of 53 Document 135

APPENDIX A
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 3 Document 135-1

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 3 Document 135-1

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 3 Document 135-1

APPENDIX B
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 3 Document 135-2

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 3 Document 135-2

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 3 Document 135-2

APPENDIX C
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 1 of 4 Document 135-3

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 2 of 4 Document 135-3

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 3 of 4 Document 135-3

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS-DEJ Filed 07/23/18 Page 4 of 4 Document 135-3

 </s> City of Milwaukee Settlement Agreement
FIRST ANNUAL REPORT
SEPTEMBER 2019
PREPARED BY THE CRIME AND JUSTICE INSTITUTE Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 1 of 72 Document 143

CONTENTS
Executive Summary .................................................................................................................................4 Notable Areas of Progress During Year One .............................................................................5 Notable Challenges to Date ..............................................................................................................5 The Year Ahead ..................................................................................................................................... 7
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................9 Background .............................................................................................................................................9 The Role of the Consultant..............................................................................................................10 The Crime and Justice Institute Team ......................................................................................... 11 How This Report Is Organized ....................................................................................................... 13
Summary of CJI Year One Activities ............................................................................................... 14 Barriers to Reform .................................................................................................................................. 17 Assessment of Year One Items......................................................................................................... 20 Policy Formulation................................................................................................................................. 38
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement ........................................................ 38 Progress in Year One ........................................................................................................................ 38 Challenges in Year One....................................................................................................................40 Data Collection and Reporting .......................................................................................................... 41 Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement ......................................................... 41 Progress in Year One ........................................................................................................................ 42 Challenges in Year One.................................................................................................................... 47 The Year Ahead .................................................................................................................................. 49
Recommendations ......................................................................................................................... 50 Training ....................................................................................................................................................... 51
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement ......................................................... 51 Progress in Year One ......................................................................................................................... 51 Challenges in Year One.................................................................................................................... 53 The Year Ahead .................................................................................................................................. 53 Supervision ............................................................................................................................................... 55 Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement ........................................................ 55 Progress in Year One ........................................................................................................................ 55
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 2 of 72 Document 143

Challenges in Year One.................................................................................................................... 56 The Year Ahead .................................................................................................................................. 58 Procedures for Complaints.................................................................................................................60 Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement ........................................................60 Progress in Year One ......................................................................................................................... 61
MPD ...................................................................................................................................................... 61 FPC ...................................................................................................................................................... 62 The Year Ahead .................................................................................................................................. 62 Audits.......................................................................................................................................................... 63 Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement ........................................................ 63 Progress in Year One ........................................................................................................................ 63 MPD ..................................................................................................................................................... 63 FPC ...................................................................................................................................................... 65 The Year Ahead .................................................................................................................................. 65 MPD ..................................................................................................................................................... 65 FPC ...................................................................................................................................................... 66 Counseling, Re-training, and Discipline ......................................................................................... 68 Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement ........................................................ 68 Progress in Year One ........................................................................................................................ 68 Challenges in Year One.................................................................................................................... 70 The Year Ahead ................................................................................................................................... 71 Conclusion................................................................................................................................................. 72
3
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 3 of 72 Document 143

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
On July 23, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered an order adopting a Settlement Agreement among the parties to Charles Collins, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al. The Plaintiffs in that case alleged that there had been racially disparate and unjustified stops, frisks, and other unconstitutional police actions. The Defendants denied those allegations, and maintain that denial in the Settlement Agreement. By the terms of the Agreement, the City of Milwaukee, the Fire and Police Commission (FPC), and the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) (collectively, the “Defendants”) are committed to implement significant changes to policies, training, supervision practices, and the use and sharing of data. The suit was filed on February 22, 2017 during the tenure of the immediate predecessor of current Chief Alphonso Morales. Chief Morales began serving as Interim Chief of Police on February 15, 2018 and was named Chief of Police on April 5, 2018.
As part of that Settlement Agreement a Consultant must prepare an annual report that addresses the City’s compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement based on a review of MPD and FPC actions and an annual analysis of MPD data on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters (NAE), searches, and frisks. After mutual agreement by the counsel for the Plaintiffs and the City, the Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) was contracted by the City to serve as the Consultant. Our role is to focus on compliance, and ways to achieve compliance, with the terms of the Settlement Agreement and to conduct prescribed data analyses. We also serve as a technical advisor and facilitator as the City, through the MPD and FPC, works toward providing effective, safe, and constitutional policing. We use the language in the Settlement Agreement to define the scope of our responsibilities.
It is worth noting that CJI, in our role as Consultant, is not a substitute for the City, MPD, or the FPC, as the major reforms outlined in the Settlement Agreement are the responsibility of the Defendants. CJI is providing assistance, support, and assessment but, ultimately, meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement is the responsibility of the City of Milwaukee. There are many requirements for the City and several are due in the first year. The language of the Settlement Agreement seems to appreciate that the culture change required by the Agreement takes time and relentless attention. The requirements of the first year are foundational—changing and creating policies, completing training, establishing processes for review and reporting, and designing methods for oversight and discipline. After building the foundation, in subsequent years expectations for compliance come with specific benchmarks for operational and behavioral changes.
This Annual Report is CJI’s assessment of the Defendants’ progress during the first year in implementing the reforms required by the Settlement Agreement.
4
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 4 of 72 Document 143

Notable Areas of Progress During Year One
To date, CJI has witnessed an authentic commitment on the part of MPD to the goals and tasks that are outlined in the Settlement Agreement. It is our opinion that MPD has been working in earnest to achieve the requirements and expectations of the Agreement. The MPD began working on the requirements of the Settlement Agreement soon after it was signed by the Parties, which was months in advance of CJI’s engagement. When CJI’s work got underway in the fall of 2018, MPD had already made notable progress in revisions to Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and developing new and revised training.
The first year of the Agreement is largely focused on policy formulation including revision, approval, communication to personnel, and training on the new policies. All of the policies itemized in the Settlement Agreement were revised and approved by the FPC and communication about and acknowledgement of the revised policies on the part of MPD personnel is nearly complete. Between January and June of 2019, nearly 1,800 members of MPD, line officers and supervisors, were trained on the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Internal Affairs investigators received training on procedures for complaints.
The first year also saw progress in establishing mechanisms for oversight in supervision, audits, reporting, and the feedback loops to training. While there is much remaining work to be done in these areas, MPD has made progress in designing and implementing internal accountability mechanisms.
As will be discussed below, MPD has experienced notable challenges related to the data requirements of the Settlement Agreement. However, we witnessed a sincere effort on the part of MPD to build the infrastructure and tools needed to collect, extract, and deliver required data to the Plaintiffs, the FPC, and CJI.
The FPC staff similarly took on the task of reform with sincerity and we believe the current staff are committed to working toward compliance with the Settlement Agreement. The FPC staff are working in concert with the MPD on mutually appropriate training for audit staff as well as with CJI for resources and ideas for structural reform. With the recently confirmed new Executive Director and new Commission chairperson, more information will become available about the staffing and budget needs for the FPC to meet the aspirations of the Settlement Agreement.
Notable Challenges to Date
CJI began this work with an expectation of cooperation from both MPD and FPC personnel and our expectation has been met. Concerns remain about the internal capacity and available financial resources of both MPD and FPC to fulfill all of the obligations of the Settlement Agreement. Vacancies or officials in an acting capacity
5
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 5 of 72 Document 143

in the FPC made it difficult in the first year to assess the constellation of needs in the FPC. The FPC and the MPD both lack a detailed and prospective planning document with processes that includes delineated assignments and timetables for all of the remaining requirements. We hope this will be rectified as we launch into year two.
The Settlement Agreement has expectations for the FPC that far exceed its current role and its ability based on the current level of staffing. The FPC was already an operation with a full workload prior to July 2018; and the Settlement Agreement added an enormous responsibility to already overburdened staff. Additionally, the FPC has experienced repeated changes in staff leadership and the Commission itself has vacancies. The Settlement Agreement calls for the FPC as the lead conduit for data to the community and envisions a more robust oversight role on the part of the Commission and staff than appears to exist currently. With those expectations, the FPC staff are examining audit models from elsewhere to inform their future audit structure and staffing needs. It is expected that the FPC will need increased staff and fiscal resources or significant reorganization to achieve the expectations of the Settlement Agreement. And certainly, the FPC itself needs a full complement of engaged, active, deliberative, and efficient Commissioners and solid leadership for the staff.
While the individuals with whom we work in Milwaukee are cooperative and committed, presently, too few people are thinking about and working towards compliance with the Settlement Agreement across the City. It is true that the change activities rest in the MPD and the FPC, but the cultural, operational, and budgetary challenges require a full on effort by leadership at all levels in the City. This includes engagement and attention from the offices of the Mayor, City Attorney, Common Council, and the FPC Commissioners.
One of the greatest challenges during year one was developing the infrastructure and tools needed to collect, compile, and extract required data and the Defendants must create a concrete and specific plan to address these deficiencies. The changes to data collection and reporting needed to achieve the requirements laid out in the Settlement Agreement require a tremendous amount of work by the MPD. Given the scope and complexity of the work, challenges and delays were expected and experienced. MPD delivered data for the first quarter of 2019 on the agreed upon date of April 15, 2019 to the Plaintiffs’ counsel and CJI. After receiving the data, our diagnostic assessment found a number of problems, including missing or incomplete data that prevented the use of data for analysis. MPD provided an improved second extraction of quarter one data on June 17, 2019 and data on the second quarter of 2019 was received on July 31, 2019, two weeks after the agreed-upon due date. Problems with the format and structure of the data remain and CJI continues to work with MPD to rectify these issues to improve the process and data delivery for future quarters.
6
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 6 of 72 Document 143

The scope of change required in the Settlement Agreement by MPD and FPC is widesweeping. It is challenging to instill, monitor, and enforce new policies, new activities, and new expectations for the police and FPC staff. Developing structures and changing behavior takes time.
The Year Ahead
Much of the attention to date was on requirements with due dates within the first year of the Agreement. In the year ahead we expect progress to be made on items that were not due within year one. We believe a detailed, multi-year plan for MPD and FPC on how they are going to meet the remaining requirements is necessary. In year two we expect the focus to shift away from policy formulation, training development, and data extraction toward establishing protocols and oversight mechanisms. There will be a greater focus on audits and on how supervisors are performing now that policies are in place and in-service training is completed.
CJI has two quarters of data in hand and as of this writing expects a third quarter to be delivered in the upcoming weeks. In the upcoming months we will continue to assess the quality of the required data and begin analyzing the data as outlined in the Agreement.
Now that MPD personnel are trained and the policies are in place, emphasis is needed from the highest level of leadership, first line supervisors, and the officers who are working on the street. Providing quality training does not ensure changes to practice. Relentless attention to and discussion of data collection, as well as engaged supervisors—who provide coaching, ongoing training, and set expectations on the radio and the street—need to be the focus of the Department.
Vacant positions at MPD—patrol officers, detectives, and supervisors— impede the Department’s ability to achieve successful compliance at the same time as the MPD is struggling to maintain effective operations while engaged with the complexities of preparation necessary to host the Democratic National Convention (DNC) in July 2020. Not only does the Department need substantial planning time, and the right staff at the appropriate levels, but also, preparation for the event will place additional, high demands upon all City departments, and this will be particularly true for MPD. The level of security, coordination, and collaboration with countless external stakeholders is something the Department knows how to do and, we believe, does well. In order to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement while meeting the needs of the DNC and continuing to do the regular day-to-day duties of policing the City of Milwaukee, MPD needs to be fully staffed with patrol officers and supervisors.
We recognize that the scope of change expected from the Settlement Agreement will take time and yet at the same time, there is an urgency to achieve the desired reforms.
7
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 7 of 72 Document 143

We believe the Defendants have shown a good-faith effort in meeting the early requirements of the Settlement Agreement and notable progress has been made. However, a tremendous amount of work remains to be done and we have concerns about the current capacity of the involved agencies. It will take the commitment and attention of many in the City including the Mayor’s Office, members of the Common Council, FPC Commissioners, the City Attorney’s Office, as well as MPD and FPC staff to ensure the staffing levels are appropriate and that requirements of the Settlement Agreement are met moving forward.
8
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 8 of 72 Document 143

INTRODUCTION
Background
On February 22, 2017, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), along with counsel from Covington & Burling LLP, filed a class action lawsuit against the City of Milwaukee, the Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission (FPC), and the Chief of the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD). Six individuals brought the case Charles Collins, et al v. City of Milwaukee (2017) on behalf of a class of people who allege that MPD’s policies and practices related to stops and frisks violate the protected rights of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the Plaintiffs alleged that the practices, policies, and customs of MPD authorize officers “to stop people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct” and “to frisk people without individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous”, which are violations of the Fourth Amendment (SA I.A.1)1. The Plaintiffs also claim that MPD sustains “stops and frisks of Black and Latino people that involve racial and ethnic profiling, or are otherwise motivated by race and ethnicity, rather than reasonable suspicion of criminal conduct, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment” as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (SA I.A.1).
On July 23, 2018, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin entered an order adopting a Settlement Agreement among the parties to Charles Collins, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al.2 The Defendants denied the allegations, and maintain that denial in the Settlement Agreement. By the terms of the Agreement, the City of Milwaukee, the Fire and Police Commission (FPC), and the Milwaukee Police Department (MPD) (collectively, the “Defendants”) are committed to implement significant changes to policies, training, supervision practices, and the use and sharing of data. The Settlement Agreement is a comprehensive agreement that outlines specific actions the Defendants must take to reform policing. The MPD and FPC are required per the Agreement to update stop-and-frisk policies, document stops and frisks appropriately, improve training, supervision, and auditing relating to stops and frisks, publish stop-and-frisk data, and allow the public to submit complaints against officers in a more streamlined and simplified process. Finally, they must utilize a consultant to assess whether the entities named in the lawsuit comply with the Settlement Agreement. The sunset of the Agreement is five years from the effective date.
1 Citations to a specific paragraph of the Settlement Agreement follow the text that relies on that paragraph and appears in parentheses containing SA followed by the paragraph number. 2 Order and Settlement Agreement (July 23rd, 2018). Charles Collins, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al., (17-CV-00234-JPS) United States District Court Eastern Division of Wisconsin Milwaukee Division.
9
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 9 of 72 Document 143

The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI) was selected to serve as the Consultant per mutual approval of the Parties. CJI entered into a contract with the City of Milwaukee on October 4, 2018 and began work immediately. As of the writing of this report we have been engaged and working collaboratively with the Parties for nearly a year.
Full compliance with the requirements of the Settlement Agreement will take a significant amount of time and effort from all Parties. Changes on this scale cannot and indeed will not happen overnight. A great deal of thoughtfulness and attention must go into these changes. The five-year timeline of the Settlement Agreement signals the amount of time this type of effort is estimated to take. This significant, multi-year initiative is not a Police Department effort, but rather a full City effort. While the majority of the required reforms outlined in the Settlement Agreement fall under MPD and FPC’s purview, the support and engagement of entities throughout the City will be vital to successful reform and meaningful improvement.
The Role of the Consultant
A major function of the Consultant role as outlined in the Settlement Agreement is to assess the City’s compliance in an annual report. This annual report assesses the Defendants’ efforts and hindrances towards compliance with the required reforms in the Settlement Agreement and includes results of required data analysis as outlined in the Agreement. For this first annual report, we have based our assessment of MPD and FPC progress during the first year of the Agreement through site visits, regular phone and email communication, and receipt and review of extensive documentation. Per the Settlement Agreement, if we find non-compliance on any requirement, we will work with the City to reach compliance and formally follow up within six months to determine whether they have in fact rectified the issues. The Settlement Agreement outlines some of the ways in which we shall measure compliance, including random reviews of incident reports and specific analyses using statistical methods. However, the Settlement Agreement does not lay out all compliance measures, and part of our work is to determine collaboratively what constitutes compliance for all of the requirements. The first draft report is due to the Parties no later than 12 months after entry into the Agreement. After a 60-day, non-public review and revision process, the final approved annual report will be filed with the court and published on the FPC website.
Other cities and police departments that have been under a court-ordered consent decree typically have a monitoring team that works for the court to assess compliance and plays a substantive role in shaping the reforms. We believe it is worth noting that in this instance the Consultant’s role as outlined in this Settlement Agreement has a notably different and more limited role than a typical consent decree monitoring team. Most consent decree monitoring teams have a robust role in community engagement and our role as Consultant is more limited in that and other areas. CJI is not an agent
10
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 10 of 72 Document 143

of the court, instead, we are an agreed upon consultant hired by the City. We will not be substantively participating in shaping departmental changes, such as policy language or training content. Rather, the consultant’s main task is tracking and reporting on the compliance of the Defendants through review and data analysis. Our role with MPD and FPC, according to this Settlement Agreement, is to focus on compliance, adherence, and data quality and analysis.
The Crime and Justice Institute Team
CJI brings decades of experience developing and evaluating evidence-based, datadriven policies, managing complex processes with diverse stakeholders, and driving organizational change within criminal justice agencies. CJI, based in Boston, works with local, state, and national organizations to improve public safety and the delivery of justice throughout the country. We have a national reputation for developing strong and lasting relationships with safety and justice organizations and stakeholders to improve policy and practice through system assessments, technical assistance, evaluation, research, and policy development and analysis with the goals of improving performance over the long term and building capacity for lasting change.
The project team is being led by CJI’s Executive Director Christine M. Cole, who is serving as the overall project lead, providing strategic guidance, and liaising with key stakeholders in Milwaukee. Ganesha Martin, who is currently the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice in Baltimore, is serving as a subject matter expert on several issues including training, audits, and supervision. Senior Policy Specialist Sarah Lawrence is managing the day-to-day operations of the project including project and staff management, compliance documentation and tracking, and operational liaising with MPD. Data and Policy Specialist Katie Zafft is leading the required data analysis, and Policy Analyst Joanna Abaroa-Ellison is playing a key role in the data analysis and overall research and operational support. Brief bios of the key staff members are below.
Christine Cole has worked for over 30 years in the safety and justice sector with a particular focus on policing. Prior to CJI, Ms. Cole served as Executive Director at the Harvard Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management. In that capacity she participated in many research and technical assistance projects related to police-community relations leading numerous focus groups of police professionals and community members in research projects from Los Angeles, CA to Papua New Guinea. She also spent many years in police agencies in Massachusetts implementing community policing, best practices, and sound management habits. She currently works on the police monitoring team in Cleveland, Ohio and has done so since 2015. Ms. Cole has a national reputation of driving police reform through her work with experts in the field. Ms. Cole holds a Master’s Degree in Public Administration from
11
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 11 of 72 Document 143

Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government and a BA from Boston College.
Ganesha Martin is an attorney contracted by CJI for her subject matter expertise in policing and compliance with court-ordered reforms. Ganesha Martin is the Director of the Mayor’s Office of Criminal Justice (MOCJ) for the City of Baltimore. She leads collaborative criminal justice efforts that include the Baltimore Police Department, Baltimore State’s Attorney’s Office, Governor’s Office of Crime Control and Prevention, U.S. Attorney’s Office, the judiciary and several community groups. Ms. Martin led the federal court-ordered Consent Decree reform efforts at the Baltimore Police Department from 2015 to 2018. As Chief of the Department of Justice Compliance, Accountability & External Affairs Division, Martin collaborated with DOJ Civil Rights Division attorneys during a pattern or practice investigation that ultimately led to a consent decree. She played an integral role on a negotiation team that introduced structural reforms to the Baltimore Police Department in the areas of crisis intervention, relationships with youth, interactions with persons suffering from mental illness, use of force, de-escalation, body-worn cameras, mobile data computer technology, hiring and recruitment, community engagement, and officer wellness and early intervention. She holds degrees in Journalism and Asian Studies from Baylor University and a Juris Doctor from Texas Tech University School of Law.
Sarah Lawrence has nearly 20 years of experience working with law enforcement agencies and criminal justice executives in research and policy partnerships. Ms. Lawrence has significant experience managing applied research projects with law enforcement agencies. She has managed many multi-site, multi-year projects including an assessment of the DOJ’s Collaborative Reform Initiative. Ms. Lawrence is a coauthor on the after-action review for the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department’s response to the 1 October mass shooting. Previously, while at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, she served as research partner for the East Palo Alto Police Department as part of the Bureau of Justice Assistance Smart Policing Initiative and she collaborated with the Oakland Police Department in the publication of several policy briefs related to crime in Oakland. While at the Criminal Justice Center at Stanford Law School, Ms. Lawrence served as the research director for an Executive Session on California’s Public Safety Realignment where she worked closely with many of the state’s top criminal justice executives. She holds a Master’s Degree in Public Policy from the University of California, Berkeley and a BS in Engineering from Cornell University.
Katie Zafft has over 10 years of experience working in criminal justice policy evaluation and implementation. Dr. Zafft’s professional research experience includes both quantitative and qualitative data analysis at the local, state, and national level to evaluate a wide range of criminal justice topics, including the intersection of law enforcement and drug policy, community supervision strategies, drug court
12
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 12 of 72 Document 143

implementation, sentencing guidelines, and felony theft statutes. Her work for The Pew Charitable Trusts’ public safety performance project involved evaluating state criminal justice policy reforms to inform the national conversation about sentencing and corrections. In a part-time capacity, Dr. Zafft serves as a faculty member in the Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology at the University of Maryland where she teaches courses on crime prevention, courts, and sentencing. She holds a Ph.D. in Criminology and Criminal Justice from the University of Maryland, a Master’s Degree in Criminology from the University of Minnesota-Duluth, and a BA in Psychology from St. Catherine’s University in St. Paul, Minnesota. Joanna Abaroa-Ellison has policy and data experience in various parts of the criminal justice system, including jails, courts, policing, and corrections. Prior to her work with CJI, Ms. Abaroa-Ellison served as the Data Integration Specialist and Research Analyst at the Middlesex Sheriff’s Office (MA). There, she was able to extract, analyze, and visualize data as well as build capacity and provide counsel for implementing datadriven practices and policies. She holds a Master’s of Social Work in Macro Practice from Boston College and BA in Criminology from the University of Pennsylvania.
How This Report Is Organized
The organization of this report reflects the order of requirements as outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Below we begin with a discussion on our activities and work conducted as the Consultant to date. Next, we provide a high-level assessment on the status of all requirements due within the first year of the Settlement Agreement as well as items that are expected at quarterly, six-month or 12-month intervals. The subsequent chapters include discussions on the City’s efforts toward compliance in the following seven areas: Policy Formulation; Data Collection and Reporting; Training; Supervision; Complaints; Audits; and Counseling, Re-training, and Discipline. Within each of these sections we include a summary of requirements in the Settlement Agreement, progress in year one, challenges in year one, and a look at the year ahead.
13
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 13 of 72 Document 143

SUMMARY OF CJI YEAR ONE ACTIVITIES
During the eleven months in our role as Consultant, we focused our attention towards understanding the organization, policies, and processes of the MPD and the FPC, understanding MPD’s data systems and structures, helping to improve data quality, building relationships with the Parties and key stakeholders, and defining measures of compliance for the requirements laid out in the Settlement Agreement. All of the above activities are vital to laying a foundation of understanding of the City and the Settlement Agreement.
As of the writing of this report, we conducted site visits to Milwaukee on three occasions. Our first trip was on November 28 and 29, 2018 and provided us an opportunity to meet numerous key stakeholders, begin to establish relationships, and start the process of understanding roles and responsibilities within MPD and FPC and the systems that are relevant to the work of the Consultant. During those two days, we met with numerous individual from the MPD, FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel and the community, and Common Council. A second visit occurred in late February 2019, where we observed in-service training and provided feedback to MPD. A third site visit was conducted on March 27 and 28, 2019. On this trip, we met with numerous MPD personnel including Chief Morales and his Chief of Staff, staff from the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) and Audits Unit, staff from the Office of Management, Analysis, and Planning (OMAP), staff from the Administrative Bureau and IT department. We also met with the ACLU of Wisconsin, members of the FPC and FPC staff, and Common Council President Hamilton. We attended and presented at a special meeting of the FPC. These meetings served to increase our understanding of the City and various agencies involved in the Settlement Agreement as well as build relationships with the Parties. Each visit and meeting served to better prepare us to perform the work required by the Settlement Agreement. The following is a full list of individuals and entities that we have met with in person to date:
Milwaukee Police Department
• Chief Morales • Executive Staff including Assistant Chief Raymond Banks, Assistant Chief
Michael Brunson, Inspector Terrence Gordon, Inspector Timothy Heier, and Chief of Staff Nick DeSiato • Administrative Bureau including Captain Jeffrey Point • Information Technology including Director Deb Wilichowski and Sergeant Douglas Wiorek • Internal Affairs Division including Captain Paul Kavanagh, Lieutenant David Feldmeier, and Sergeant Ruth Fishnick • Office of Management, Analysis, and Planning including Director Regina Howard and Sergeant Mark Krowski • Training Academy including Captain Nicole Waldner and Lieutenant Birch • Patrol officers
14
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 14 of 72 Document 143

Fire and Police Commission
• FPC Commissioners • Former Executive Director La Keisha Butler • FPC personnel including Clifton Crump
City of Milwaukee • Mayor Tom Barrett and staff3 • City Attorney Grant Langley • Deputy City Attorney Jan Smokowicz
American Civil Liberties Union of Wisconsin
• Karyn Rotker • Jarret English
Other In-Person Meetings
• Plaintiffs Stephen Jansen and David Crowley • Judge Lynn Adelman • Common Council President Ashanti Hamilton • Markasa Tucker, Collaborative Community Committee (CCC) • Fred Royal, CCC • Tom Klusman, Milwaukee Police Supervisors’ Organization Labor Relations
Manager • Shawn Lauda and Sarah Polka, Milwaukee Police Association
We performed a variety of activities in addition to site visits to better understand the people, systems, and issues critical to our role as Consultant. We have a standing weekly call with MPD that involves several MPD personnel representing the many divisions impacted by the Agreement. We also have a standing monthly call with the Plaintiffs’ counsel. These regular communications serve to keep us informed on the progress and challenges of complying with the Settlement Agreement, as well as to build trusting relationships. Thus far, we have found MPD and FPC personnel who are working on the Settlement Agreement to be actively embracing both the requirements as well as the intent of the Agreement and open to our suggestions and feedback on their internal processes and progress toward compliance. We received and reviewed a significant amount of documentation from MPD and FPC to help us understand the processes and systems relevant to the Agreement and to serve as certification and verification that changes are being made and made in a way that is in accordance with the Agreement. The CJI team has regular communication via phone and email with representatives of MPD, FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the City Attorney’s Office.
On March 27, 2019, we presented to FPC Commissioners and Alderman Pérez at a special meeting of the FPC. The meeting served as an opportunity for our team to
3 While scheduling difficulties prevented an in-person meeting with Mayor Barrett, CJI had a lengthy telephone conversation with him and communicates regularly with his chief of staff.
15
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 15 of 72 Document 143

introduce ourselves to the Commissioners and the public, explain our role as the Consultant per the Settlement Agreement, and provide an overview of the activities conducted to date. Our team members fielded questions from the Commissioners and Alderman Pérez about CJI’s work and areas where the City was showing progress at that time.
The Public Safety and Health Committee, a Common Council subcommittee, as part of an agenda item at their April 5, 2019 meeting, requested an update on the Settlement Agreement. We submitted a letter to the Committee on CJI’s role and MPD’s observed progress as of that date. We also submitted a letter to the Steering and Rules Committee for their meeting on May 16 at the request of the Common Council President that provided an update on Settlement Agreement progress.
An important piece of the Consultant’s role in assessing compliance involves data analysis of racial and ethnic disparities in police encounters. The MPD delivered data for the period January 1 through March 31, 2019 (quarter one) on the agreed upon date of April 15, 2019 to the Plaintiffs’ counsel and CJI. However, our initial diagnostic assessment of the first quarter data revealed a number of problems, including missing or incomplete data that prevented the data from being used for analysis. We provided feedback on the identified issues regarding data quality to MPD based on our initial assessment of the data. The Department acknowledged our concerns and worked to correct errors and prepared a second extraction of quarter one data. On June 17, 2019, MPD provided the Plaintiffs’ counsel and CJI with a second extraction of quarter one data.4 A third data extraction was provided to CJI, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the FPC the first week of August 2019 that included quarter one and quarter two data, covering the period January 1 through June 30, 2019. A review of the quarter one and quarter two data shows that the Department delivered improved data, although outstanding issues with data quality that are described below remain and CJI continues to work with MPD to resolve these issues. We look forward to working with the IT Department and OMAP on the extraction and sharing; and expect command staff to work with street supervisors and patrol officers on improving the quality of the data reporting.
CJI has created a master tracking document to assist us in monitoring the status of all of the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. The internal tool includes details about responsible entities, timeframe, documentation needed, and current status. In many instances, the Settlement Agreement does not provide detail on what documentation or other evidence is required to demonstrate compliance and we have begun the process of defining standards for compliance for all elements of the Settlement Agreement that hold the Defendants to a high standard while maintaining realistic expectations of what is possible given time and resource constraints.
4 The first quarter data was provided to the FPC on July 16, 2019.
16
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 16 of 72 Document 143

BARRIERS TO REFORM
CJI believes that the current FPC vacancies, if left unaddressed, and lack of clear timelines and policies governing the timeframes of decisions for the FPC impede effective governance and operations of MPD. As the oversight body, established in 1885 5 by Wisconsin law and the Milwaukee City Charter, the civilian Board of Commissioners has a dual role of providing a venue for the public to comment on agenda items as well as providing oversight functions of both fire and police including approving policies, setting standards, and testing for hiring and promotions. The authority of the Commission includes all aspects of operational oversight of the Fire and Police Departments. The Commission also accepts complaints from the public and hears disciplinary appeals of Fire and Police Department members.
At the time of this writing, the FPC has positions within the Commission that have been vacant for an extended period, and some members are serving in expired terms. These vacancies not only limit the roles for active and interested community members and consequently limit points of access for the community, they also hamper FPC’s ability to conduct business (specifically subcommittees) outside the twice-monthly meeting. The wide range of responsibilities of the FPC extend to hearing appeals from applicants who are rejected during a hiring process, participating on subcommittees (typically three Commissioners per committee) to hear items specific to policy, discipline, testing and research, and engaging with the community by attending public meetings at the invitation of neighborhood organizations. The ability of the Commission to fully deliver on its expectations is challenged without a full complement of members and clear guidelines for decision making. The Settlement Agreement envisions a more robust and effective FPC and the demands on the FPC will only expand. The part-time positions come with extensive expectations and efficiency depends upon a full complement of Commissioners. It is imperative that the Mayor and Common Council, as approving body, appreciate and act to fill these vacant positions.
Rules guiding the timing of decisions and processes for making decisions appear to be lacking. While MPD must provide policies to the FPC 20 days before enacting them, there is no guidance on the timing of decisions made by the FPC. The chair and executive director can make administrative decisions though they put many items on the agenda for the next meeting and these items often continue to the following meeting or a subcommittee for community input. In many circumstances, 50 to 60 days can pass before FPC makes a decision. More often though, votes are postponed for additional community input or referred to a subcommittee for further review before being placed on the agenda for the full Commission. The practice of sending Standard
5 https://city.milwaukee.gov/fpc/About#.XSXVMWbsaM8 (accessed 7.10.19) also the Commission’s authority and responsibility are specified in Wisconsin Statute section 62.50, and in the Milwaukee City Charter.
17
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 17 of 72 Document 143

Operating Procedures (SOPs) to subcommittees rather than hold a hearing that includes public input seems to create further delays in the process. While getting input and comment from the community is of utmost importance, perhaps the Commission could formulate and vote on a process for public input, creating timelines and structure for public comment and timelines for decision making or postponement of rather than sending a policy through what feels like a repeated cycle between the Commission and subcommittee discussions without vote or action.
With the evident delays in the review, discussion, and approval of some policies, it seems to CJI that there is a larger inefficiency in the process for deliberation and decision making that could jeopardize the ability of the City to achieve compliance in real and effective ways. As of July 2019, 13 policies were before the Commission. MPD submitted six in June and these were within the 20-day review period; six were well past the 20-day review period with an average pending period of 162 days; one policy in particular, which we understand has been referred to a subcommittee, remains unresolved since April 2018, over 450 days. None of these policies is directly within the scope of the Settlement Agreement though the lack of action on the new or revised policies leaves the community, including those at MPD, wondering about the FPC’s position and consequently, about expected behavior. The Commission acted in a more expeditious manner for the seven policies directly within the oversight of the Settlement Agreement, approving them on average within 51 days. At the lowest end, the Commission approved one policy 37 days from filing and, at the other end, the approval of two policies took 71 days. See the Policy Formulation section of this report for detailed information on the timeline for approval of the SOPs by the FPC under the direct purview of the Settlement Agreement.
We believe that a robust, fully engaged FPC is vital to the City’s ability to achieve compliance with the Settlement Agreement. Our assessment to date is that significant inefficiencies at the FPC exist and that current vacancies prevent the Commission from fulfilling its policy-making roles and responsibilities effectively. The FPC must balance the very significant need for community input with its duty to ensure effective oversight, governance, and action on the issues before it. We believe FPC inefficiencies will become a barrier to reform and compliance with the Settlement Agreement should the City not address the above described issues with the Commission.
18
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 18 of 72 Document 143

Budgetary appropriations, limitations, or cuts could also interfere with the City’s otherwise robust work toward compliance. Inadequate staffing, in the present and the future, at both the FPC and the MPD are hardships for those agencies not only to achieve their core mission but also with the additional work required by the Settlement Agreement. The Settlement Agreement in section IV.E.3. anticipates the need for the FPC “to hire additional staff and/or employ experts or consultants to conduct the audits described…” and certainly, it would be difficult or impossible for either the FPC or the MPD to achieve compliance with less staff given the emphasis on supervision throughout the Settlement Agreement.
19
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 19 of 72 Document 143

ASSESSMENT OF YEAR ONE ITEMS
The table below includes a status update for Settlement Agreement requirements with specific delivery dates during the first year of the Agreement as well as items that are expected at quarterly, six-month or 12-month intervals. The relevant paragraph references where each requirement can be found in the Agreement, a description of the Settlement Agreement requirements, the deadline as outlined in the Settlement Agreement, the overall status of the requirement (compliant, in process, or noncompliant) as of the end of year one, and a brief description of the progress status, including documentation that was submitted to CJI as proof of compliance, are included below. Items have been classified in the following categories:
 Compliant: The Defendants have complied fully with the requirement and the requirement has been demonstrated to be adhered to in a meaningful way and/or effectively implemented.
 In Process: The Defendants have made sufficient, partial progress toward key components of a requirement of the Settlement Agreement but have not achieved or demonstrated full compliance. The Defendants may have made notable progress to technically comply with the requirement and/or policy, process, procedure, protocol, training, system, or other mechanism of the Settlement Agreement but have not yet demonstrated effective implementation. This includes instances where an insufficient span of time or volume of incidents have transpired for effective implementation in a systemic manner. It may capture a wide range of states, from the Defendants having taken only very limited steps toward compliance to being nearly in compliance.
 Non-Compliant: The Defendants have not complied with the relevant requirement of the Settlement Agreement. This includes instances in which the Defendant’s efforts may have begun but the Consultant has deemed those efforts insufficient.
Overall, the Defendants have demonstrated compliance with the majority of requirements that had explicit due dates within the first year of the Agreement. There are some areas in which Defendants have made notable progress on requirements, and they have missed the delivery date or some component resulting in an “in process” classification. There are some requirements for which we find the Defendants noncompliant.
20
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 20 of 72 Document 143

SA Paragraph:

IV.10.a

Settlement Agreement Defendants agree to amend MPD SOP 001 – Fair and

Requirement:

Impartial Policing, as shown in the redlined document

attached to the Agreement as Appendix A.

Deadline:

Within 90 days of entry into the Agreement

Status:

Compliant

Progress Status:

CJI received the final revised and published SOP 001. CJI received a memo that confirms the revised SOP 001 was reviewed during roll call. CJI received confirmation that all required personnel acknowledged the revised SOP through the Continued Education and Request Travel/Training (CERTT) system.6

SA Paragraph:

IV.10.b

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall prepare proposed revised policies for submission to FPC within ninety (90) days of entry into this Agreement. Defendants also agree to work with Plaintiffs to amend the following MPD SOPs within sixty (60) days of entering into this Agreement to reflect provisions of this Agreement that pertain to policies, procedures, guidelines, and standards addressed in these specific SOPs. Should the Parties be unable to reach agreement, they agree to submit their proposed changes to Judge Lynn Adelman for his recommendation. Any of the following are subject to the process prescribed by Wis. Stats. § 62.50(3) for FPC approval in accord with its rules:

SOP 085–Citizen Contacts, Field Interviews, Search and Seizure;

SOP 300–Directed Patrol Missions/Saturation Patrols;

SOP 440–Early Intervention Program;

SOP 450–Personnel Investigations;

SOP 730–Mobile Digital Video/Audio Recording Equipment;

SOP 747–Body Worn Camera; and

6 CERTT is a software system that certifies officers have read and signed new and revised policies. It provides a record of personnel who have and have not acknowledged policy changes.
21
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 21 of 72 Document 143

SOP 990–Inspections.

Deadline:

Submission to FPC within 90 days of entry into the Agreement

Status:

SOPs 085, 300, 440, 730, 747 and 990: Compliant

SOP 450: In process

Progress Status:

CJI received the final revised and published versions for SOPs 085, 300, 440, 450, 730, 747. CJI received a memo that confirms these revised SOPs were reviewed during roll call and confirmation that all required personnel acknowledged the revised SOPs through CERTT, with the exception of SOP 450. MPD sent SOP 450 to the FPC for approval on 4/26/19 and FPC approved the revisions on 6/20/19. CJI is now awaiting CERTT documentation confirming that all personnel have acknowledged this policy. CJI received documentation that the Plaintiffs’ counsel withdrew the request to amend SOP 990 on 10/31/18.

SA Paragraph:

IV.11

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

To effectuate the principles and constitutional standards addressed in paragraphs IV. 1–8, Defendants agree to formally withdraw the following MPD policy document: Memorandum No. 2009-28, "Traffic Enforcement Policy,” Mar. 3, 2009. See Appendix B.

Deadline:

None specified in Settlement Agreement

Status:

Compliant

Progress Status:

On 10/26/2017 the MPD rescinded and replaced Memorandum No. 2009-28 with the Traffic Enforcement and Crime Reduction Policy. CJI received the memo that communicates to members of the Department that the policy was rescinded and replaced, as well as evidence that this memo was shared on roll call and communicated to MPD personnel.

SA Paragraph:

IV.A.2.c

Settlement Agreement Defendants shall ensure that all no-action encounters are

Requirement:

documented in CAD.

Deadline:

None specified in Settlement Agreement

22
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 22 of 72 Document 143

Status:

Non-compliant

Progress Status:

The MPD is documenting no-action encounters in RMS, however, the Agreement states that no-action encounters are to be documented in CAD. Without input or agreement from the Plaintiffs, Defendants decided to document noaction encounters in RMS. While the reasons for such a change may be reasonable and represent the best course of action, Plaintiffs should have been consulted. CJI recommends Defendants communicate to the Plaintiffs the reasons for this change.

SA Paragraph:

IV.A.7

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

The MPD database(s) of video footage from police-vehicle cameras and body-worn cameras shall be searchable by CAD number with video to be produced one incident at a time, with such searches available for both types of video within one year from the date of the Agreement. Video footage concerning traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and searches shall be easily and quickly made available to the Consultant upon request, and no later than 7 calendar days from the date of the request.

Deadline:

Within one year from the date of the Agreement

Status:

Compliant

Progress Status:

MPD provided CJI screenshots from evidence.com website that shows that MPD’s body worn camera footage is searchable by CAD number. CJI cannot test this capability remotely and has plans to test in person when on site at MPD in September 2019.

SA Paragraph:

IV.A.10

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall ensure that MPD provides, on a quarterly basis, the electronic, digitized data on all traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches described in paragraph IV.A.3, with the exception of any personally identifiable information, to the FPC, Plaintiffs' counsel, and the Consultant. Defendants shall also provide explicit identification of primary keys, foreign keys, constraints, and indices in order to identify how the TraCS, RMS, and CAD datasets or tables link together and what types of duplicates can be expected. To the extent that any unique identifier (i.e., primary key) includes personally

23
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 23 of 72 Document 143

identifiable information, that unique key shall be transformed so that it is not readily readable.

Deadline:

While no date is specified in the Settlement Agreement for when data extractions should begin, Parties agreed that the first data extraction, which included 2019 quarter one data, would be delivered on 4/15/19. Subsequent data extractions will occur on or about the 15th day of the month after the reporting quarter.

Status:

In process

Progress Status:

MPD provided the first quarter of data to the Plaintiffs’ counsel and CJI on 4/15/19. After an initial evaluation of the data by CJI, it was discovered that the data were incomplete and in too poor quality to be used for analysis. The MPD corrected many of the errors and re-delivered the first quarter data to Plaintiffs’ counsel and CJI a second time on 6/17/19. First quarter data was delivered to the FPC on 7/16/19. Second quarter data was due on 7/15/19. It was delivered to CJI and the FPC on 7/31/19 and to Plaintiffs’ counsel on 8/2/19. A quality assessment of these data shows that the data are somewhat improved relative to the first extraction but issues with the data remain a problem. An assessment of these data can be found in the Data Collection and Reporting section of this report. CJI is continuing to work with MPD to resolve outstanding data issues.

SA Paragraph:

IV.A.11

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall ensure that MPD provides to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Consultant the manuals for police officer and supervisor use of TraCS, RMS, and CAD including examples aimed at clarifying the procedure for inputting into each system all of the information identified in paragraph IV.A.3 about traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and searches recorded in the system.

Deadline:

None specified in Settlement Agreement

Status:

In process

Progress Status:

On 7/31/19 MPD provided CJI the TraCS User Guide and Tritech Manual (RMS). MPD asserted that the training materials for data entry in RMS and TraCS served as manuals for police officers and supervisors. CJI finds the documentation on TraCS data entry sufficient. CJI does

24
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 24 of 72 Document 143

not find the documentation on RMS data entry as described in the training materials as sufficient in serving as manuals for police officers and supervisors. The TriTech (RMS) manual provided to CJI includes nothing on the RMS field interview (FI) module.

SA Paragraph:

IV.A.12

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall ensure that MPD provides to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Consultant the codebooks and data dictionaries for users of TraCS, RMS, and CAD that clearly define every variable captured in records of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches, as well as all values that each variable can be assigned.

Deadline:

None specified in Settlement Agreement

Status:

Non-compliant

Progress Status:

A first version of the data dictionary was delivered to CJI on 4/15/19 and a slightly revised version was delivered on 6/17/19. They did not include enough information about how the data files linked together and were missing variable definitions. We made recommendations for revisions and a third version of the data dictionary was delivered to CJI on 8/6/19. While some improvements were made, the dictionary still does not provide specific information about how data files link together and is missing variable definitions and descriptions. We have provided to MPD specific recommendations on how to improve the data dictionary and gain compliance.

SA Paragraph:

IV.A.13

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall ensure that the FPC will publish on its website, on an annual basis, the electronic, digitized data on all traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches described in paragraphs IV.A.1-3, with the exception of any personally identifiable information. The FPC will also post on its website any and all reports published by the Consultant pursuant to the Agreement.

Deadline:

On an annual basis but no date is specified in the Settlement Agreement for when the first digitized data should be published

Status:

In process

25
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 25 of 72 Document 143

Progress Status:

The FPC did not publish on its website the electronic, digitized data by the one year anniversary of the signed Agreement, as the FPC did not receive data that was ready to be publicly posted. The Parties need to agree upon when the first digitized data publication should occur as well as the data quarters that should be included.

SA Paragraph:

IV.B.1.a

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall adopt procedures to ensure that all officers are able to articulate, verbally and in writing, the constitutional standards for individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion and probable cause in conducting a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search, and will provide appropriate remedial training where any officer is unable to do so. MPD will develop a training bulletin for all MPD officers reinforcing the requirements for a traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, and frisk, including with respect to establishing reasonable suspicion for the stop, field interview, or any frisk, which shall be reinforced through roll call training conducted by supervisors.

Deadline:

None specified in Settlement Agreement

Status:

In process

Progress Status:

Defendants have demonstrated that systems and procedures are designed and in place since the completion of training to ensure that officers are able to articulate the constitutional standards and other factors for the several stop types. CJI has not yet reviewed the actual reports for quality to assess the specific actions of supervisors. MPD produced a training bulletin that reinforces the constitutional requirements for stops.

SA Paragraph:

IV.B.1.b

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall continue the training begun in 2013 in fair and impartial policing through a program developed by Lorie Fridell, Ph.D. and A. T. Laszlo. Plaintiffs’ counsel shall review the substance of this training program within six (6) months of the execution of this Agreement and shall suggest revisions or additions to this training program. Said suggestions are to be incorporated into the training program only upon the approval of the aforementioned program developers, or by similarly-qualified individuals retained for that purpose by MPD. Similarly qualified individuals will include certified MPD trainers trained by

26

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 26 of 72 Document 143

Fridell or Laszlo. Similarly qualified individuals will also include trainers trained by Fridell or Laszlo, retained by MPD.

Deadline:

Plaintiffs’ counsel shall review substance of this training program within six months of the execution of the Agreement

Status:

Compliant for year one

Progress Status:

CJI received confirmation that the Plaintiffs’ counsel received training materials on 12/7/18 and observed the training in January 2019. The Plaintiffs’ counsel provided comments on the fair and impartial policing (FIP) training and MPD provided responses to those comments. CJI received copies of the training materials and evidence that the trainer is a National Instructor for the Fair and Impartial Policing National Training team.

New MPD personnel are provided the full 8-hour training on fair and impartial policing. As part of the in-service training that ran from January through June 2019, MPD provided 5.5 hours of FIP refresher training with a nationally certified, in-house, trainer. The 5.5 hours is less than the full eight-hour training for patrol officers and supervisors, and more than the three-hour booster advertised on the website for Fair and Impartial Policing (www.fipolicing.com). The curriculum used by MPD is a shortened version of the official FIP curriculum which could compromise the pedagogical integrity of the training. In subsequent years, CJI recommends conferring with FIP about modifications to the curriculum and to secure updated materials.

SA Paragraph:

IV.B.2.a-d

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Within twelve (12) months of the execution of this Agreement, and on an annual basis thereafter, MPD shall provide training for all MPD staff who conduct, supervise, document in TraCS, RMS, or CAD, and/or audit traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. If Defendants show good cause for the need for an additional six months to complete this training, Plaintiffs will not unreasonably withhold agreement to such an extension. The topics of such annual training should include, but not be limited to:

the MPD databases (TraCS, RMS, and CAD) containing the information identified in paragraph IV.A.3 on all traffic

27
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 27 of 72 Document 143

stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches;

what information about each traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, as well as frisks and searches conducted in the course of those encounters, must be documented in TraCS , RMS, and/or CAD;

documentation and reporting responsibilities of officers who conduct traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches; and

how to retrieve data on traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and searches from TraCS, RMS, and CAD in order to review encounter reports for evidence of compliance with constitutional standards, this Agreement, and MPD policies concerning the conduct of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches.

Deadline:

Within twelve months of the execution of the Agreement

Status:

Compliant for year one

Progress Status:

CJI received training materials on documenting traffic stops, no-action encounters, field interviews, frisks, and searches in TraCS and RMS. CJI also received the roster of all officers who attended in-service training between January and June 2019.

SA Paragraph:

IV.B.3

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

All training materials developed and/or approved by Defendants to comply with paragraphs IV.B.l and IV.B.2 of this Agreement shall be provided to Plaintiffs within six (6) months of the execution of this Agreement for review.

Deadline:

Within six months of the execution of the Agreement

Status:

Compliant

Progress Status:

CJI has confirmed that the Plaintiffs’ counsel received training materials on 12/7/18 and updated training materials were sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel on 3/1/19.

SA Paragraph:

IV.B.4.b

28
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 28 of 72 Document 143

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Plaintiffs shall observe training sessions identified in paragraph IV.B.2 to ensure that the training complies with the requirements of this Agreement and promotes the goals of lawful traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. Defendants shall provide the training calendar to Plaintiffs as soon as it is available. Plaintiffs will make every effort to attend in-service training sessions within the first two weeks and will do so no later than the first month that such training is provided. Two observers on behalf of Plaintiffs shall be allowed to observe any training related to this Agreement. In the event that an observer witnesses and documents training that is not consistent with the requirements of this Agreement, Plaintiffs are to bring any such deficiency to the prompt attention of Defendants. Defendants shall then be allowed to correct the erroneous training within three months. In the event that the Defendants fail to do this, Plaintiffs may seek a remedial order from the Court and the Defendants shall be liable for all reasonable fees and expenses connected to any such motion.

Deadline:

Training Calendar: As soon as possible

Training Corrections: Within three months of receiving corrections

Status:

Compliant

Progress Status:

CJI has confirmed that MPD sent the training schedule to the Plaintiffs’ counsel on 12/7/18. The Plaintiffs’ counsel observed MPD in-service training on 1/7/19 and 1/8/19 and provided comments on MPD training on 1/11/19. MPD and Plaintiffs’ counsel have had a few rounds of feedback on training and MPD’s latest set of responses was sent to Plaintiffs’ counsel on 5/7/19.

SA Paragraph:

IV.C.1.a

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

All reports of arrests, which are documented in the RMS system, will be reviewed and approved by a supervisor within the time period prescribed by SOP 263–Records Management [within 5 days]. The supervisor will review the reports for various matters, including the lawful basis for any traffic stop or field interview that led to the arrest, and the lawful basis for any frisk or search conducted during the encounter.

Deadline:

Within six months of the execution of the Agreement

29
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 29 of 72 Document 143

Status:

Supervisor approval within five days: Compliant

Supervisor review of lawful basis: Non-compliant

Progress Status:

CJI understands that MPD’s current practice complies with a state law that requires supervisory approval within 48 hours so that the court commissioner or judge can conduct a probable cause hearing.

Supervisor review of the lawful basis will be included as part of MPD’s audits and cursory reviews. The MPD Audit Unit, contemporaneous with training, reviewed a subset of reports from the period January to June 2019 to assess supervisors’ compliance with the Settlement Agreement requirements. Because training was ongoing at the time a full audit was not conducted. CJI expects to conduct a more rigorous assessment of the quality of the supervisor review in the next six-month period.

MPD did not reach compliance in a demonstrable way by the anniversary date of the signed Agreement. Based on representations of MPD Command Staff, formal expectations on supervisory review were postponed until after the completion of training in late June 2019. While the MPD may have valid and understandable reasons for this, such delays were not communicated to or agreed upon by the Plaintiffs’ counsel. Such a delay prevents CJI from having done a thorough, qualitative review of supervisory compliance with this requirement.

SA Paragraph:

IV.C.1.b

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD will achieve a practice of supervisory review, correction, and approval of 50% of all documentation of field interviews in RMS consistent with the timeframes set forth in SOP 085.20. Supervisors shall review for completeness, and shall review the stated basis for the field interview and any frisk and/or search conducted in the course of the field interview. Prior to approving reports for submission to RMS, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented.

Deadline:

Within twelve months of the date of the Agreement

Status:

Non-compliant

30
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 30 of 72 Document 143

Progress Status:

During the six-month period when over 1,700 officers were being trained, the Audit Unit conducted reviews of supervisors' reports.

MPD began conducting cursory reviews of supervisor review of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches in March 2019 and CJI has received copies of summaries. Cursory reviews are a randomly selected representative sample of reports submitted in a specific time frame (see Counseling, Training, and Discipline section for full description). CJI has received the audit plan and methodology and the Compliance/Performance Testing Instrument used to conduct the audits.

MPD did not reach compliance in a demonstrable way by the anniversary date of the signed Agreement. Based on representations of MPD Command Staff, formal expectations on supervisory review were postponed until after the completion of training in late June 2019. While the MPD may have valid and understandable reasons for this, such delays were not communicated to or agreed upon by the Plaintiffs’ counsel. Such a delay prevents CJI from having done a thorough, qualitative review of supervisory compliance with this requirement.

SA Paragraph:

IV.C.1.c

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD will achieve supervisory review, correction, and approval of every warning and citation issued by MPD officers in the course of a traffic stop or field interview, as recorded in TraCS within seven (7) days, consistent with the timeframe set forth in SOP 070. Supervisors shall review for completeness, and shall review the stated basis for the traffic stop, field interview, and any frisk and/or search conducted in the course of the traffic stop or field interview. Prior to approving reports for submission to TraCS, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented.

Deadline:

Within twelve months of the date of the Agreement

Status:

Non-compliant

31
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 31 of 72 Document 143

Progress Status:

During the six-month period when over 1,700 officers were being trained, the Audit Unit conducted reviews of supervisors' reports.

MPD has begun conducting cursory reviews of supervisor review of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches in 3/19 and CJI has received copies of such reviews. CJI has received the audit plan and methodology and the Compliance/Performance Testing Instrument used to conduct the audits.

MPD did not reach compliance in a demonstrable way by the anniversary date of the signed Agreement. Based on representations of MPD Command Staff, formal expectations on supervisory review were postponed until after the completion of training in late June 2019. While the MPD may have valid and understandable reasons for this, such delays were not communicated to or agreed upon by the Plaintiffs’ counsel. Such a delay prevents CJI from having done a thorough, qualitative review of supervisory compliance with this requirement.

SA Paragraph:

IV.C.1.d

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD shall achieve supervisory review, correction, and approval of every no-action encounter documented in CAD within fourteen (14) days. Supervisors shall review for completeness and shall review the stated basis for the noaction encounter. Prior to approving reports as complete, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented.7

Deadline:

Within twelve months of the date of the Agreement

Status:

Non-compliant

Progress Status:

During the six-month period when over 1,700 officers were being trained, the Audit Unit conducted reviews of supervisors' reports.

MPD has begun conducting cursory reviews of supervisor review of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches in 3/19 and CJI has received copies of such reviews. CJI has received the audit

7 MPD is recording no-action encounter data in RMS not CAD. 32
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 32 of 72 Document 143

plan and methodology and the Compliance/Performance Testing Instrument used to conduct the audits.

MPD did not reach compliance in a demonstrable way by the anniversary date of the signed Agreement. Based on representations of MPD Command Staff, formal expectations on supervisory review were postponed until after the completion of training in late June 2019. While the MPD may have valid and understandable reasons for this, such delays were not communicated to or agreed upon by the Plaintiffs’ counsel. Such a delay prevents CJI from having done a thorough, qualitative review of supervisory compliance with this requirement.

SA Paragraph:

IV.C.3

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall require MPD command staff to counsel, train, or to refer for re-training, any supervisor (e.g., sergeant or lieutenant) who is found through supervisory review to have failed to properly review and correct patrol officers who conduct an unreasonable, race- or ethnicitybased, unreported, or insufficiently documented traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, or search, or to properly refer such officers to counseling, training, or re-training. Appropriately qualified trainers from the Police Academy shall provide such re-training to the officer within thirty (30) days of such a finding. Every six (6) months, Internal Affairs will prepare a report for command staff of allegations of policy violations described above and any corrective actions taken.

Deadline:

A report of allegations of policy violations will be prepared for command staff every six months

Status:

Non-compliant

Progress Status:

During the year since the Settlement Agreement was signed, the IAD has not produced a report on violations of policies related to supervisory matters. CJI expects details, including the release schedule, of this deliverable to be included in a six-month follow up report by CJI.

SA Paragraph:

IV.C.6

Settlement Agreement MPD shall complete a twice per year community policing

Requirement:

status report and forward that report to the FPC.

Deadline:

Twice per year

33
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 33 of 72 Document 143

Status:

Non-compliant

Progress Status:

The MPD has not developed a community policing status report.

SA Paragraph:

IV.D.2

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

MPD Internal Affairs investigators shall receive special training conducted within one year from the execution of this Agreement in the investigation of complaints by members of the public, including training on the amendments to SOP 450 required by this Agreement. The training shall be conducted by a supervisor of Internal Affairs with expertise in complaint investigation and shall be consistent with those provisions of this Agreement that relate to this subject.

Deadline:

Within one year from the execution of the Agreement

Status:

Compliant

Progress Status:

CJI has received documentation that MPD IA investigators received special training on complaint investigations. MPD did not have the capacity to conduct the trainings internally, as specified by the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, MPD participated in a training by Northwestern University instructors from the University’s Center for Public Safety on IA investigations. Defendants did not but should have consulted Plaintiffs’ counsel on having the training be conducted by Northwestern University rather than by an MPD Internal Affairs supervisor.

SA Paragraph:

IV.E.1.a-d

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendant FPC shall audit data, dashboard camera footage, and body camera footage on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches, every six (6) months to identify:

a. Officers who fail to conduct these encounters in compliance with constitutional standards and principles set forth in this Agreement;

b. Officers who fail to properly document these encounters in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;

c. Supervisors who fail to properly review subordinate officers’ reports to identify officers who fail to conduct

34
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 34 of 72 Document 143

traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and/or searchers in compliance with constitutional standards and this Agreement, or to ensure that the encounters are properly documented in compliance with the terms of this Agreement; and

d. Supervisors who fail to require re-training and/or discipline for subordinate officers who conduct unreasonable, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters.

Deadline:

Every six months

Status:

Non-compliant

Progress Status:

The data were not available to the FPC to meet this requirement.

SA Paragraph:

IV.E.2

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

In order to ensure that complaints from members of the public are appropriately investigated, the FPC, including through the work of any retained consultants, shall conduct an audit every six (6) months of: (a) complaints submitted by members of the public to the MPD, and (b) complaints from members of the public to the FPC.

Deadline:

Every six months

Status:

In process

Progress Status:

The FPC auditor has reviewed and audited FPC complaints only.

SA Paragraph:

IV.E.5

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendant FPC shall publish on its website, on a quarterly basis, data on civilian complaints received, under investigation, or resolved during the previous quarter, including the number of complaints from members of the public broken down by number relating to traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches without legal justification and traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches based on race or ethnicity and whether the complaints remain open or have been closed.

Deadline:

On a quarterly basis

35
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 35 of 72 Document 143

Status:

In process

Progress Status:

The first complaint data upload was on 1/23/19, with subsequent data uploads occurring quarterly after that (4/22/19 and 7/19/19). The published complaint data includes complaints filed from January 2018 through June 2019. While the initial data published did not include the necessary tabulation broken down by categories outlined in the Settlement Agreement, FPC reformatted the published data which is now in compliance with the requirements. The published data to date only includes complaints received by FPC. FPC is working with MPD to incorporate data on complaints received by MPD as well. We will look for this addition in future data uploads.

SA Paragraph:

IV.E.6.a-d

Settlement Agreement Requirement:

Defendants shall ensure that the appropriate division within MPD audits data, dashboard camera footage, and body camera footage on traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and searches every six (6) months to identify:

a. Officers who fail to conduct these activities in compliance with constitutional standards and principles set forth in this Agreement;

b. Officers who fail to properly document these encounters in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;

c. Supervisors who fail to properly review subordinate officers’ reports to identify officers who fail to conduct traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches in compliance with constitutional standards and this Agreement, or to ensure that the encounters are properly documented in compliance with the terms of this Agreement; and

d. Supervisors who fail to require re-training and/or discipline for subordinate officers who conduct unreasonable, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters.

Deadline:

Every six months

Status:

In process

36
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 36 of 72 Document 143

Progress Status:

CJI is aware of processes and systems to review these data and to follow on with retraining or discipline. The audits are not complete and CJI is not able, therefore, to review those audits.

SA Paragraph:

VIII.2

Settlement Agreement No amendments of this Agreement will be valid unless

Requirement:

made in writing and signed by all of the signatories hereto.

Deadline:

No deadline specified

Status:

Non-compliant

Progress Status:

CJI finds that during the first year of the Agreement, the Defendants made some amendments to the Agreement without consulting with the Plaintiffs as required. Such substantive changes include:

• IV.A.2.c: No-action encounters not being documented in CAD.
• IV.C.1.a-d: Not feasible to achieve supervisory review thresholds within timeframes specified.
• IV.D.2: Training provided by Northwestern University rather than by an Internal Affairs supervisor with expertise in complaint investigation.

Moving forward, CJI strongly encourages the Defendants to consult with Plaintiffs prior to making decisions that can be considered amendments to the Settlement Agreement.

37
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 37 of 72 Document 143

POLICY FORMULATION
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement
The Settlement Agreement requires changes to the MPD’s Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) to ensure that officers carry out all traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, and frisks in accordance with the protected rights in the Constitution as well as with fairness and respect. Departmental policies must make clear that traffic stops, field interviews, and no-action encounters be supported by individualized, objective, articulable reasonable suspicion of unlawful conduct, and frisks must be supported by individualized, objective, articulable reasonable suspicion that a person is armed and poses a threat. Law enforcement officers may not rely on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, age, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, immigration status, limited English proficiency, disability, or housing status as reasonable suspicion or probable cause in the absence of a specific suspect description. Moreover, officers cannot solely rely on a person’s appearance or demeanor, the time of day, or inappropriate presence of a person in a neighborhood as evidence of reasonable suspicion. However, officers may use these factors in combination with other legally appropriate factors to establish reasonable suspicion or probable cause. MPD shall not have policies, trainings, or performance evaluations that use a quota system on the number of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, searches, or arrests. In order to ensure that MPD’s policies and practices are consistent with the principles of the Settlement Agreement reviewed above, the Defendants have agreed to make changes to the Standard Operating Procedures listed in the table below.
Progress in Year One
Many of the Settlement Agreement’s requirements are predicated on the revision of MPD’s Standard Operating Procedures. Therefore, revising MPD’s SOPs was the City’s first essential step towards MPD reform and reaching compliance with the Settlement Agreement. The Parties engaged in an iterative SOP revision process and agreed upon many of the changes prior to the start of CJI’s work as the Consultant. In the first year, the City revised and published the seven Standard Operating Procedures required by the Settlement Agreement. The Department communicated changes to the SOPs to MPD personnel through roll call. All officers, except those who had a documented reason for leave such as military or extended medical leave, reviewed the revised SOPs through the Continued Education and Request Travel/Training (CERTT) web application.8 CJI received final versions of the revised policies, evidence that MPD
8 CERTT is a software system that certifies officers have read and signed new and revised policies. It provides a record of personnel who have and have not acknowledged policy changes.
38
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 38 of 72 Document 143

shared the revised policies via roll call, and evidence that all personnel without documented reasons for leave acknowledged the policies. SOP 450 — Personnel Investigations is the only revised SOP not fully acknowledged by members of the Department through CERTT at the time of this writing. The FPC approved SOP 450 on June 20, 2019 and MPD published the SOP and shared the updated SOP via roll call the following day. The Department needs reasonable additional time to ensure all personnel have acknowledged receiving and reviewing SOP 450 through CERTT. While the Settlement Agreement requires the City to revise SOP 990 — Inspections, the Plaintiffs withdrew the request to amend this SOP on October 30, 2018. Finally, the Settlement Agreement requires MPD to rescind Memorandum No. 2009-28 Traffic Enforcement Policy. On October 26, 2017, prior to the Settlement Agreement, the MPD rescinded and replaced Memorandum No. 2009-28 with the Traffic Enforcement and Crime Reduction Policy. CJI received evidence that MPD shared this memo via roll call via screenshots from their roll call system.

Publication Timeline of Revised SOPs

Standard Operating Procedure
001- Fair and Impartial Policing
085- Citizen Contacts, Field Interviews, Search and Seizure 300- Directed Patrol Missions/Saturated Patrols
440- Early Intervention Program 450- Personnel Investigations 730- Mobile Digital Video/Audio Recording Equipment

Revised Policy Submitted to FPC

Revised Policy Approved by FPC

11/13/2018

12/20/2018

12/13/2018 11/13/2018 12/13/2018 4/26/2019 1/23/2019

1/24/2019 12/20/2018 1/24/2019 6/20/2019 4/4/2019

Revised Policy Published by MPD 12/21/2018
1/25/2019
12/21/2018 1/25/2019 6/21/2019
4/8/2019

747- Body Worn Camera 1/23/2019

4/4/2019

4/8/2019

39
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 39 of 72 Document 143

Challenges in Year One
Although the City has published all of the revised SOPs in the first year, the Settlement Agreement required MPD to submit the revisions to FPC for approval within 90 days of entering into the Agreement. That 90 day deadline was not achieved due to the Collective Bargaining Agreement requirements of "meet and confer" on new or changed policies with the Milwaukee Police Association and the Parties in negotiations on changes to the policies. Review and approval of the proposed changes to the SOPs required in the Settlement Agreement by the FPC ranged between 37 and 71 days. The delay in the SOP revision and approval process meant that MPD was not able to revise and finalize all SOPs by the start of in-service training. The training began on January 2, 2019 as planned and the FPC approved the last policy relevant to the training on January 25, 2019 without substantial modification. Though the training began in advance of the approval of the final policy, MPD was able to train appropriately all officers according to the policies.
40
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 40 of 72 Document 143

DATA COLLECTION AND REPORTING
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement
The MPD is required to document every traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, and search as a digitized record in specified data collection systems. They must document traffic stops in Traffic and Criminal Software (TraCS), field interviews in Records Management Systems (RMS), and no-action encounters in Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD).9 If a traffic stop or field interview results in a frisk and/or search, then staff will enter documentation and the outcome concerning the frisk and/or search into the TraCS and RMS systems, respectively. Police encounter reports should include the following information:
• Subject’s demographic information • Location of encounter • Time and date of encounter • Legal justification for the encounter • Whether frisk and/or search was conducted and resulted in seized contraband
and the type of contraband • Legal justification if use of force was used and type/level of force • Outcome of the encounter • Relevant suspect description • Names and identifying numbers of all officers on the scene10
The data entry systems must have a function that ensures all of the required information are in the “hard fields” (fields that must be entered) prior to the officer submitting the electronic record. Officers must submit reports prior to the end of their tour of duty. However, if an officer is unable to complete the report entry during their tour of duty, then the data must be entered in the report prior to the end of the next tour of duty.
In addition to the information required for police encounter reports, MPD must include information that allows for data management and analysis of police encounters. The datasets must contain a primary key that bridges information across the TraCS, RMS, and CAD systems. Every record should include a unique identifier associated with the subject involved in the police encounter. The individual’s unique identifier should be the same within and across all datasets to track individuals who have repeat encounters with the police. The Defendants must also provide population and socioeconomic data so that those conducting analysis can use them as control variables.
9 While the Settlement Agreement stipulates that no-action encounters be recorded in CAD, this new data element is being recorded in RMS. 10 See SA paragraph IV.A.3.a-l for further detail on required information for reporting police encounters.
41
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 41 of 72 Document 143

The parties are expected to collaborate on determining the relevant socio-economic factors to be included in data analyses. If officers capture any of the above encounters through police-vehicle camera or body worn camera footage, then the encounter record must include a unique identifier that links the record with the associated footage. All video footage must also be searchable by CAD number.
MPD is required to share data and data-related documents to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and CJI on a quarterly basis. The Department should also provide to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and CJI detailed instructions on how the datasets link together, codebooks and data dictionaries for the datasets, and user manuals for TraCS, RMS, and CAD. On an annual basis, FPC must make publicly available via its website the electronic, digitized data on police encounters.
Progress in Year One
A major requirement of the Settlement Agreement is for MPD to improve its data collection and reporting efforts allowing for analysis of racial and ethnic disparities in police encounters by the Parties and CJI. MPD worked in earnest to achieve compliance with the data collection and reporting requirements in year one. We acknowledge that updating and improving the data collection and reporting systems pursuant to the Settlement Agreement is a tremendous undertaking, and challenges and delays were to be expected. Indeed, MPD faced a number of issues in their efforts to improve their data systems that delayed the delivery of data to the Parties and CJI. Nevertheless, MPD gained a deeper level of knowledge about their data collection and reporting systems and practices through trial and error.
MPD made great strides in and continues to improve upon their data collection and reporting efforts. MPD decided to record no-action encounters in RMS, rather than through the CAD system.11 The Defendants should have communicated with Plaintiffs’ counsel in advance of making this change and should still provide the rationale for making the change from CAD to RMS to the Plaintiffs’ counsel. The Information Technology (IT) Division updated the RMS data entry interface to require officers to enter all of the information required in the Settlement Agreement for field interviews and no-action encounters prior to submitting the report. The new interface will not allow officers to skip over required information when documenting a field interview or no-action encounter. TraCS, however, is a statewide system used for reporting traffic stops and MPD is not permitted to alter the system. MPD provided CJI with the software manuals for TraCS and RMS and in-service training materials regarding data entry in TraCS and RMS. The TraCS training materials sufficiently explain the process for entering traffic stops into the system and provides examples on how to do so. The
11 Because MPD is not using CAD to track no-action encounters, many of the compliance requirements now only relate to RMS and TraCS systems.
42
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 42 of 72 Document 143

RMS training materials, however, do not provide instruction on how to enter information into the system or provide examples and is not sufficient as a guide for using the RMS system as it relates to field interviews and no-action encounters. All police-vehicle and body worn camera footage is searchable by CAD number. As stated earlier in this report, we plan to take a random sampling of videos using the CAD number to verify that the CAD number links encounter records with the associated video footage.
The IT Division also created a data warehouse to store in a single location the data extracted from RMS, TraCS, and CAD systems. The data warehouse allows MPD to efficiently share data with the Parties and CJI. MPD delivered data for the first quarter of 2019 on the agreed upon date of April 15, 2019 to the Plaintiffs’ counsel and CJI. After receiving the data, we conducted a diagnostic assessment and found a number of problems, including missing or incomplete data that prevented the use of data for analysis. We provided detailed feedback on the issues regarding data quality to MPD based on our initial assessment of the data. MPD took our concerns seriously and worked to correct errors and prepared a second extraction of quarter one data more fit for data analysis.
On June 17, 2019, MPD provided the Plaintiffs’ counsel and CJI with a second extraction of quarter one data.12 During the week of August 2, 2019, MPD provided the Plaintiffs’ counsel, FPC, and CJI with a data extraction containing quarters one and two of 2019 along with an updated data dictionary. A review of the data files shows that it includes all of the required fields (i.e., variables), with the exception of relevant suspect description prior to field interviews. Some of the required information was not provided in a format we deem to be sufficient for analysis. The data dictionary includes some information about the primary keys linking the data files together and offers variable descriptions. We have provided MPD guidance about how the data dictionary should be improved, specifically regarding the primary keys that link data files together and more detailed explanation of variable descriptions.
Assessment of the data indicates that MPD improved the data quality in the second extraction. However, some issues with the data quality remain. In addition, CJI finds the data MPD provided on use of force in traffic stops to be inadequate at the present time. We have brought these issues to MPD’s attention and they are actively working to implement solutions. Data extraction of the magnitude and specificity required by the Settlement Agreement was expected to be an iterative process in which improvements are made with each additional extraction attempt. MPD has risen to the challenge of this data undertaking and continues to improve upon their data input, organization, and extraction procedures. This learning process will improve the quality
12Quarter one data was provided to the FPC on July 16, 2019.
43
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 43 of 72 Document 143

and completeness of subsequent quarterly data transfers, allowing for a robust data analysis in future annual reports. Given the focus on creating a more complete and organized data extraction, we did not have sufficient time to fully analyze the data to assess compliance with the terms of the Settlement Agreement that pertain to whether MPD’s policing practices were free of racial or ethnic bias. A six-month follow-up to this annual report will offer an update to all issues of non-compliance and a more detailed analysis of the data. This report assesses the extent to which data elements required by the Settlement Agreement are missing in the extraction we received the week of August 2, 2019. Per SA V.1.d.i-iii, fewer than 14% of records of traffic stops, field interviews, and noaction encounters should be missing any of the information required by SA IV.A.3. The percent of missing data for required data fields is being reported in this year one report to serve as a baseline for future measurements. We also look to pre-litigation data in the Report of David Abrams (2018)13 for an additional baseline, particularly as it relates to the number of CAD calls, field interviews, and traffic stops. This baseline may help illustrate changes that occur as a result of new leadership, policies, and the implementation of the Settlement Agreement. The table below details the content and quality of the data requirements for the first two quarters of data covering the period January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019. A detailed discussion of the table is below in Challenges in Year One. The percentages in the table represent the extent to which data in that field was complete (i.e. not missing). The number of encounters (n) for field interviews, no-action encounters, and contact summary records are counted by the number of persons (non-officers) involved in the encounter.
13 Abrams, D. (February 20th, 2018). “Report of David Abrams, Ph.D.” Charles Collins, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al., (17-CV-00234-JPS) United States District Court Eastern Division of Wisconsin Milwaukee Division. Retrieved from American Civil Liberties Union Website: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/expert-report-david-abrams-phd.
44
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 44 of 72 Document 143

Paragraph Requirement

CAD

Field Interview (RMS)

No-Action Contact

Encounter Summary

(RMS)

(TraCS)

ELCI (TraCS)

IV.A.1

every encounter n = is documented 35,085

n = 2,490 n = 133

n = 34,389 n = 25,713

IV.A.2

clear duplicates Not clear Not clear Not clear Not clear Not clear

IV.A.3.a

(i) age; (ii) gender; and (iii) race and ethnicity

N/A

(i) 99.9%; (ii) 99.9%; (iii)a 99.6% and 94.2%

(i) N/A; (ii) 100%; (iii) 100% and 100%b

(i) 73.2%;
(ii) 73.2%; (iii) 73.2%c

(i) 97.6%; (ii) 97.6%; (iii) 97.2%

IV.A.3.b

location
(address; police districtd)

100%; 97.5%

100%; 97.2%

98.1%; 97.2%

98.4%; 96.0%

97.9%; 66.5%

IV.A.3.c

date

100%

100%

100%

100%

Data not receivede

IV.A.3.d

start time

100%

100%

100%

100%

Data not receivedf

IV.A.3.e

written narrative Data not / legal basis for received the stop

88.1% for narrative, 99.7% for stop justification

100%

39.5%g

97.0%

IV.A.3.f

whether a frisk was conducted; written narrative of legal basis

N/A

99.9%; 87.7%

N/A

Not clear

Data not received

IV.A.3.g

whether a search was conducted; written narrative / legal basis

N/A

99.9%; 92.3%

N/A

73.3%; 99.9%h

Data not received

IV.A.3.h

whether any contraband was found; type of contraband seized

N/A

99.9%

N/A

100%; 99.8%

Data not received

45
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 45 of 72 Document 143

Paragraph Requirement

CAD

Field Interview (RMS)

No-Action Contact

Encounter Summary

(RMS)

(TraCS)

ELCI (TraCS)

IV.A.3.i

whether the encounter resulted in use of force; type/level of force used; stated justification

N/A

99.8%; data not received; 87.0%

N/A

Data not received

Data not received

IV.A.3.j

result of encounter; violations, offenses, or crimes

N/A

99.8%; 93.9%

N/A

99.9%; 99.9%

Impliciti; 97.8%

IV.A.3.k

relevant suspect description received by police prior to encounter for any field interview

N/A

Data not received

N/A

N/A

N/A

IV.A.3.l

names; identifying numbers of officers involved

99.1%

99.6%; 99.6%

100%; 100%

96.2%; 100%

95.1%; 98.0%

IV.A.3

unique stop identification number

CAD number

CAD number (96.9% match to CAD data)

CAD number (90.7% match to CAD data)

CAD number (97.0% match to CAD data)

CAD number (68.8% match to CAD data)

Notes: a. These are the percentages of known races and ethnicities. 99.9% if including “unknown.” b. While there is no NULL data, 2.3% of gender and race are “unknown”, and 15% of ethnicity are “unknown”. c. Ethnicity is part of the race category in TraCS. d. The percentages for police district reflect the number of records with a district specified, and does not include records coded as NULL. MPD has indicated that records with NULL police district are likely out of jurisdiction or other special circumstances. The Contact Summary and ELCI datasets require joining to CAD data to obtain police district information. e. ELCI data could be merged with CAD data to find date, but not for all records. f. ELCI data could be merged with CAD data to find start time, but not for all records. g. This percentage represents written justifications that are not marked “NULL” in the data. h. This represents a coded justification. There is another field with narrative justification, which contains data in 8.3% of records. i. By being in the ELCI data, we know that a citation was issued.

46
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 46 of 72 Document 143

Challenges in Year One
The changes to data collection and reporting laid out in the Settlement Agreement require a tremendous amount of work by the MPD and, given the scope of work, challenges and delays were to be expected. Below we discuss in more detail the areas where data or elements of the data dictionary are missing or need to be improved:
IV.A.1 – To develop a baseline for the expected number of calls, field interviews, and traffic stops, we compared the 2019 Q1 and Q2 data with the 2015 and 2016 data analyzed in the Report of David Abrams (2018). The number of records in CAD included in the data extract provided to CJI from the first half of 2019 represents 8% of the records in CAD from the first half of 2015 and 2016 as reported in Abrams (2018). It is unclear whether we only received CAD data as it relates to requirements of the Settlement Agreement, which may explain the difference in the number of records. The number of field interviews from the first half of 2019 represents 41% of the field interviews from the first half of 2015, and about 33% of field interviews from the first half of 2016. Contact summary records from the first half of 2019 represent about 50% of records from the first half of 2015 and 2016. ELCI record totals - which represent electronic citations that occur during police encounters - from 2019 appear consistent with historical data from 2015 and 2016. No-action encounters are a new type of police activity, so it is unclear how many should be expected.
While changes in the number and type of police encounters are expected with new leadership and policies, the large differences we see in the 2019 data compared to 2015 and 2016 may indicate the influence of something other than new leadership and policies. We continue to work with MPD to investigate the causes for the decrease in records from CAD, field interviews, and contact summary forms, and will implement a strategy to overcome any data collection, reporting, or extraction issues that may be present. Further, we will investigate the timing of leadership changes and policy implementation to gain a better understanding of whether these changes may explain the decrease in encounter totals.
IV.A.2 – Duplicate records are not clearly indicated within data files or across linked data files. The CAD number appears to be the only unique encounter identifier across all data files. MPD must specify this in the data dictionary.
IV.A.3.e – Officers are trained to write the narrative explaining the legal basis for the traffic stop in a field called “agency space”. As shown in the above table, only 39.5% of traffic stops have narrative data in this field. In some cases the narrative does not appear to include an explanation of the legal basis for the encounter (e.g. “DISPLAYED WI DL”). This is an issue MPD should investigate and remedy.
47
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 47 of 72 Document 143

IV.A.3.f – For traffic stops, we believe it is likely that there are an unknown number of frisks not recorded as such because of the structure of the electronic data collection system, the state owned TraCS. MPD’s review of the data revealed this collection issue, and possible definition and training issues around the collection of search and frisk data. Historically, MPD viewed searches and frisks as two distinct actions, and yet, TraCS recognizes frisks as a subcategory of searches. TraCS, which cannot be modified by the MPD, requires the user when entering a frisk, to first identify it as a search. This extra step, not consistently taken, could result in undocumented frisks. MPD needs to identify a solution so that data on searches and frisks during traffic stops can be reliably recorded and analyzed separately.
IV.A.3.i – Officers have been trained to write details about use of force in the narrative field of the contact summary form in TraCS. Searching narrative fields is an inefficient and unreliable method for data analysis. We appreciate the sensitivity around the AIM database because it includes personnel information as well as UOF data. MPD needs to identify a means for extracting UOF data from the AIM14 database. We will work with MPD to obtain UOF data in a non-narrative format.
IV.A.5 – There is a unique person identifier in the field interview and electronic citation data files called MasterPersonId. Through this variable we were able to see that some individuals were involved in both a field interview and received an electronic citation. However, there are no unique person identifiers in data extracted from CAD or TraCS. The Settlement Agreement requires a unique person identifier across all data files and MPD needs to develop a strategy to meet this requirement.
IV.A.6 – Based on communication with MPD we understand that the CAD number links police encounters with the associated body worn camera footage. As previously stated, we plan to take a random sampling of videos using the CAD number to verify that the CAD number links encounter records with the associated video footage.
IV.A.10 – It is not clear from the data dictionary which primary keys link data files or what the linking relationship is between data files. MPD should improve the data dictionary based on recommendations listed in the following section.
IV.A.12 – The data dictionary provided to us does not clearly describe every variable and does not define all values within each variable. MPD should improve the data dictionary based on recommendations listed in the following section.
Changes to data collection and reporting protocol for officers brought about a number of expected challenges. MPD conducted an in-service training of all officers that explained new requirements for entering data and the new data collection system in RMS for reporting field interviews and no-action encounters. However, MPD began
14 Administrative Investigative Management System.
48
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 48 of 72 Document 143

using the new data collection system prior to all officers completing in-service training. Consequently, there remains potential for data entry errors among officers not yet trained or those still becoming accustomed to the new data entry protocols and data entry system. This further supports the importance of retraining, feedback from the Audit Unit and supervisors, and regular attention to achieve compliance. Additionally, officers received training on what constitutes a no-action encounter during in-service training, which is a new classification of a police encounter for MPD. Not all officers received training on no-action encounters prior to MPD beginning to collect data on no-action encounters. MPD discovered through an internal review of no-action encounter reports that there is confusion among officers on what types of civilian engagements are no-action encounters. For instance, officers were incorrectly classifying field interviews as no-action encounters and erroneously entering interactions with community members as no-action encounters that do not qualify as no-action encounters. Given these challenges, it is crucial that no-action encounters, including the definition and recording protocols, are revisited in subsequent trainings. MPD used the findings from the initial reviews to clarify points of confusion during inservice training and to ensure that reports were reviewed and corrected throughout the chain of command. This review process has proven thus far to be a valuable feedback mechanism. If reviews show inconsistency in reporting or patterns of errors, the Audit Unit informs the Academy to incorporate into and improve training.
The Year Ahead
The lessons learned during the first year of data collection and reporting will benefit MPD in subsequent years. They should be able to extract future quarterly data with greater ease and initiate timely data transfers to the Parties and CJI. Additionally, by mid-June 2019, all officers completed in-service training and now better understand data collection and reporting practices and what types of interactions qualify as noaction encounters. Moving forward, we expect fewer data entry errors or misclassifications of no-action encounters and improved reporting, in turn improving the reliability and validity of the data. Furthermore, by the second annual report, MPD will have collected and delivered several additional quarters of police encounter data, which will allow the Parties and CJI to analyze the data per the requirements outlined in the Settlement Agreement and draw more meaningful conclusions on racial and ethnic disparities and required levels of reasonable suspicion in police encounters. Finally, over the next year, as the Parties and CJI better learn about and prepare the data for analysis, additional data issues might be discovered that could require MPD to revise the ways in which data are collected and extracted to allow for robust data analysis.
49
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 49 of 72 Document 143

Recommendations
Based on a review of the data provided to us to date, which covers the period January 1, 2019 through June 30, 2019, the Crime and Justice Institute makes the following recommendations to (1) improve data extraction, (2) improve data joining, and (3) facilitate analysis of the data, including the required annual and semiannual analyses.
MPD should:
• Combine all data files that have direct (1:1) relationships with each other into one file instead of sending multiple files.
• Improve the data dictionary to be more descriptive of the data files and variables within the files by: defining value labels, describing the type of data for each variable (IV.A.12), explicitly stating how files are joinable across data files (IV.A.10), and explaining how encounter data is to be linked to associated video footage (IV.A.6).
• To the extent possible, remove dummy and void data from extraction before delivering to parties, (e.g., void data in ELCI records)
• Investigate areas where there is more than 14% of data missing and create a plan to work toward improvement in those areas (V.1.d)
• Investigate the differences in number of records from historical data, and if serious concerns about data entry are found, make efforts to rectify the problems (IV.A.1)
• Include in future data extracts: o Transcription of officer’s communication with dispatch in CAD datasets (IV.A.3.e) o Use of force data for traffic stops (IV.A.3.i) o Use of force type for field interviews (IV.A.3.i) o Relevant suspect description for field interviews (IV.A.3.k) o Unique identifier that bridges CAD, TraCS, and RMS to allow analysis of a specific individual (IV.A.5)
50
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 50 of 72 Document 143

TRAINING
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement
The MPD is required to review and revise training materials on all policies and procedures relating to traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. They must also consider in these revisions the ways that officers and supervisors can or cannot use race, ethnicity, national origin, and other characteristics as guided by their revised SOP 001 on fair and impartial policing (FIP). MPD must implement procedures that enable officers to be able to articulate the constitutional standards for reasonable suspicion and probable cause in their stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. If an officer is not able to do this, MPD must provide remedial training. To reinforce the requirements for stops, frisks, and other interactions, MPD shall create a training bulletin, which supervisors can share during roll call. Within six months of the Agreement, the Plaintiffs shall review the fair and impartial policing training and make suggestions, which MPD can incorporate if the developers of the program or qualified individuals approve them. The trainers will test officers to ensure that they are learning the content. MPD supervisors will receive training to be able to review documentation of police encounters for accuracy and proper practices. Supervisors will receive training on identifying trends that give rise to potentially biased practices.
MPD must hold annual training that covers data collection and reporting. MPD must train officers on TraCS, RMS, and CAD, the databases containing information on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. Officers must receive training on what information needs to be in each database and their responsibility for reporting that information. MPD must also train staff on methods for extracting encounter data in order to review reports for compliance with the Settlement Agreement, as well as constitutional standards and MPD policies.
MPD is required to provide training materials that comply with the Agreement to the Plaintiffs within six months of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement. Next, the Plaintiffs will review the training materials, observe training sessions, and make any recommendations they may have to ensure the training is consistent with the Agreement requirements. They shall bring any deficiency in the training to the attention of MPD, who should correct any errors within three months.
Progress in Year One
Many departments struggle with creating or revamping training on new policies in a short amount of time. MPD met the task head on and was intentional in preparing the Academy staff and Department leadership to undertake this task. While not required by the Settlement Agreement, they began training with a communications course.
51
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 51 of 72 Document 143

Knowing how to police constitutionally is mandatory, but knowing how to do so in a manner than maintains a positive relationship with the community can be challenging. The nature of police work is such that officers normally arrive to a scene under negative circumstances that are full of stress and contention. The ability to deescalate and manage those situations, while maintaining officer safety, is often times difficult and yet, one for which police officers can and should practice and be prepared. Beginning training on constitutional policing and data collection with the basics of professional and courteous communication laid the framework and expectation that respectful and professional communication is expected in all MPD interactions. Throughout the course material and during group discussions, trainers and officers generated ideas on ways to maintain positive interactions with the public. These included showing empathy, active listening, and understanding cultural differences in the community.
MPD provided training materials to the Plaintiffs’ counsel in December 2018 and ACLU attorneys representing the Plaintiffs observed the training in January 2019. While the observations were positive overall, observers for the Plaintiffs raised concerns about perceived shortcomings in the training and lack of strict adherence to the Agreement in some instances. Of particular concern was their belief that the training did not discuss the factors around reasonable suspicion and probable cause (SOP 085.20). Under the Settlement Agreement, MPD has three months to review the feedback and make any changes. MPD and Plaintiff’s counsel engaged in a few rounds of written responses to the feedback on the training. MPD made some of the suggested changes immediately, and did not make others. As of this writing, to CJI’s knowledge there has been no comment from the Plaintiffs’ counsel on the last MPD response provided in May.
As part of the in-service training that ran from January through June 2019, MPD provided five and a half hours of FIP refresher training with a nationally certified, inhouse, trainer. Five and a half hours is shorter than the full eight-hour training for patrol officers and supervisors and longer than the three-hour booster advertised on the website for Fair and Impartial Policing. The curriculum used by MPD is a shortened version of the official FIP curriculum which could compromise the pedagogical integrity of the training. In subsequent years, CJI recommends conferring with FIP about modifications to the curriculum and to secure updated materials. New MPD personnel are provided the full 8-hour training on fair and impartial policing.
The in-service training covering the issues required by the Settlement Agreement began on January 2, 2019 and concluded on June 18, 2019. During that six-month period, 1,786 members of the Department completed the training. CJI received training materials used for in-service training, the full training roster of officers who completed the training, and the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Standards Board WI DOJ — Training and Standards Bureau certification for MPD’s in-service instructors.
52
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 52 of 72 Document 143

Challenges in Year One
As mentioned previously, the Plaintiffs’ counsel raised concerns about aspects of the training, and while MPD earnestly worked to resolve and discuss these issues, there were significant delays in the formal transfer of information between counsel for the Parties. We believe that it is crucial that the Defendants establish and maintain processes that ensure prompt and timely responses to Plaintiffs to minimize future delays in the transfer of information. There have been suggestions on ways to make this exchange more expeditious and given this is a legal process, issues of attorneyclient privilege and communication present challenges. We encourage such conversations to continue, as we believe timely and constructive communication between the Parties is optimal for all involved and for MPD in particular. We fully expected that delays during the first year would occur despite best efforts, but we anticipate communication and information exchange to be improved upon as we move forward in the process as trust and protocols are further refined.
While MPD included group testing mechanisms for the material presented, there was no individual assessment to ensure that each participant could articulate, verbally or in writing, the constitutional standards. We believe MPD can improve this process with short quizzes for example. Police nationwide struggle with the ability to articulate individualized reasons for stops and frisks making individualized assessment of understanding in training all the more critical. Failure or inability to articulate the constitutional standards and then act in accordance with those standards is detrimental to the relationship with the community and can affect prosecution. It is of the utmost importance that we ensure that officers understand the importance of this skill and are able to demonstrate it during training.
Additionally, the Settlement Agreement requires supervisors to identify patterns of biased behavior. MPD created a process by which audits identify these patterns and trends. The Audit Unit subsequently generates a memo for supervisors advising them of issues in their command. We have advised, and the Department has agreed, to provide written guidance for supervisors to act on the memo. Review of bias in reports will become the subject of future reviews by the MPD and CJI.
The Year Ahead
The next year for MPD will be critical. While policy development and training are essential, tracking officer behavior and compliance will act as another measure of the effectiveness of the training. Trainers should incorporate any trends and patterns identified into training. The Department should reinforce communication throughout the organization regarding expectations to adhere to training at every rank. Early assessment has shown officers are struggling with the classification and documentation of no-action encounters. Robust training on no-action encounters in
53
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 53 of 72 Document 143

the next training cycle will be important. MPD will need to utilize and/or improve its internal methods for identifying and responding to trends of non-compliance with remedial training. MPD should track and formalize in writing this type of re-training. MPD should identify and address by progressive discipline repeated patterns of behavior not rectified by re-training. Certainly, audits will be helpful in assessing the effectiveness of the training though supervisory interaction and attention to the men and women on the street matters too. An established feedback loop from audits to the Academy to incorporate patterns and trends that led to re-training or discipline is critical. We will look to review the adherence to these systems of accountability for compliance with the Settlement Agreement.
54
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 54 of 72 Document 143

SUPERVISION
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement
Within six months of the effective date of the Settlement Agreement, the Milwaukee Police Department is required to create and implement policies regarding the supervision of officers who are conducting traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches. The Agreement requires that a supervisor review and approve all arrest records in the RMS database in a timely manner. Supervisors shall look for the lawful basis of the stop that led to the arrest, as well as the lawful basis for searches or frisks that occurred during the interaction. Within 12 months, MPD is required to review, correct, and approve—within set timeframes—at least 50% of all records of field interviews in the RMS database. In addition, supervisors are required to review, correct, and approve all warning and citation records in the TraCS database within seven days. Finally, MPD supervisors must achieve these same things for noaction encounter records within 14 days. In all of these databases, supervisors must ensure officers fill in information that may be missing from the original record. Supervisors shall document any non-compliance.
If a supervisor finds that an officer has performed an unreasonable or racially based stop or other encounter, MPD is required to provide counseling or training to that officer. The same is required for supervisors who have improperly or incompletely reviewed or corrected unreasonable or racially based encounters. Internal Affairs is required to prepare a report every six months of any violations of policies relating to supervisory matters. MPD must include in their performance review process compliance with legal requirements relating to stops and other encounters. MPD must include discussion of community policing in their command staff meetings. Twice annually, MPD will prepare a community policing status report and submit the report to FPC.
Progress in Year One
Supervision is key for organizational change. Supervisors need to be trained, active, and responsive to policy. There also needs to be effective oversight and accountability of supervisors. The processes MPD is establishing for the Audit Unit will review not only the action of officers, but also the attention supervisors give to the content of the written reports, response to officers (e.g., corrections, re-training, or discipline), and follow through with officers by supervisors. The front line supervisors have a critically important role in MPD achieving the intent of the Settlement Agreement. They need support from the chain of command. That being said, they should also be re-trained in the event they do not meet expectations. During the first half of 2019, the supervisors, as well as other members of MPD, received training on the new policies, the new reporting forms, and with that the rationale and behavioral expectations that
55
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 55 of 72 Document 143

accompany the revised policies. 15 Indeed, it is more than new policies that the Settlement Agreement intends; it is behavior and attitudinal change. The community wants to see and feel that officers understand their position and perspective. Through accurate record keeping, routine review, and regular reporting to the public, MPD as well as community based stakeholders can begin to assess if Department personnel understand and embrace the intent of the Settlement Agreement.
With the completion of training in June and the advent of the routine, scheduled, audits; not only will the feeling of supervision change, but also expectations on supervisors. Supervisory review of reports and any subsequent actions review will become evident and critical beginning in July 2019. Supervisors will similarly feel reviewed by the Audit Unit as regular audits of officer reports as well as supervisor assessments of all reports within the purview of the Settlement Agreement will be implemented.
Based on rosters of individuals who completed training and review of training materials, the Training Division and Audit Unit have demonstrated that they have trained all officers and supervisors in quality report writing and review. Supervisors should be looking for problem language, incomplete actions, or behavior inconsistent with the intent of the Settlement Agreement. MPD did not anticipate full and complete adherence to the new policies and therefore they did not vigorously enforce the Settlement Agreement requirements until the completion of the training schedule in June. It is impossible to have full compliance and is unreasonable and not practicable for MPD to fully enforce adherence until they have trained all officers.
Challenges in Year One
MPD dedicated the first six months of the Settlement Agreement to creating an internal implementation plan, focusing on the revision, approval, and promulgation of policies, and developing training. During the second six months, MPD continued policy formulation and conducted training. The months it takes for any police department, let alone a police department of a major city, to train all personnel must be a consideration when one expects changes in practice and behavior to occur on a timeline. As stated elsewhere, MPD cannot hold people accountable to policies that are new or changed without the entire membership having gone through training of the content and intent of the policy as well as have an opportunity to practice the behaviors on the street and become accustomed to the reporting formats. Based on representations of MPD Command Staff, formal expectations on supervisory review were postponed until after the completion of training in late June 2019. While the MPD may have valid and
15 Newly promoted supervisors receive three weeks of training that covers the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. MPD has conducted this training two times in 2019 as of September.
56
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 56 of 72 Document 143

understandable reasons for this, such delays were not communicated to or agreed upon by the Plaintiffs’ counsel.
The Settlement Agreement, as well as generally good policing, relies heavily on adequate officer to supervisor ratios. The current number of vacancies in MPD’s supervisory ranks combined with the additional operational demands of the preparations for the DNC threatens quality supervision on the street. MPD understands the need for greater supervision and is operating with promotion lists that are old, have been extended, and in one case, an exhausted list. Because of the timeline associated with test announcement, administration, and certification, immediate action is necessary to support not only the effective operation of the MPD but also achieve compliance with the Settlement Agreement and effective planning and training for the DNC. The old and expired lists may be a casualty of the inconsistent leadership in the position of FPC Executive Director in the last three years. With the nomination (and appointment after the year one mark of July 23) of an Executive Director, CJI hopes that budget appropriators, with the FPC, Office of the Mayor, and MPD, can plan and budget costs for routine and regular recruitment and promotional exams. Having fresh promotional lists and scheduled examinations for both hiring and promoting is the responsibility of many City agencies together. Cooperation, coordination, and appropriation of reasonable and necessary funds are necessary.
Paragraphs in the Settlement Agreement have specific expectations for the behavior of supervisors. Without effective supervision, it will be difficult for MPD to achieve the behavioral changes that the Settlement Agreement intends. Within the first year, MPD trained supervisors on the new policies as well as their role on the street with officers relative to approving, remediating, and disciplining officers for failure to complete reports correctly as well as for not adhering to the new policies in practice. During the second half of the first year of the Settlement Agreement, January through June 2019, MPD completed training and observed officer and supervisor behavior. The observation and data collection period created an opportunity for officers and supervisors to learn the new ways and for the Audit Unit and data collection teams to ramp up their oversight and reporting capacity. This groundwork positions the Department well for the next six months when they will impose consequences for problems with report writing and behavior inconsistent with the policies within the purview of the Settlement Agreement.
The City must create and host an exam for promotions, and based on the current dates associated with the promotional lists, exams are years behind schedule. In addition to effectively limiting quality supervision on the street—the single most critical component to achieve the intent of the Settlement Agreement—and the inability to provide reasonable supervisor to officer ratios, this logjam creates risk management issues on the street and compromises the ability of the chief to promote to command ranks.
57
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 57 of 72 Document 143

As with departments across the country, Milwaukee is experiencing and predicts continued high rates of retirement as the wave of officers hired by agencies in the 1990s with COPS16 money reach retirement age. Presently, those retirements, many of which are in the supervisory and command ranks, impede the quality of supervision necessary on the streets of Milwaukee. Police Departments across the country are experiencing challenges recruiting. 17 The Department leadership in the last several months requested that the City establish both promotional and hiring exams. While technically the sergeant list is active until August 30, 2019, it is nearly three years old. Originally set to expire May 5, 2018, it has been extended twice. In our experience, and consistent with the practice in Milwaukee, without FPC approved extensions, promotional lists beyond two years in age are retired and considered out of date. The list for lieutenants expired after one extension a year ago in 2018 and the detective list is exhausted and expired March 31, 2018 after an extension. Achieving compliance with the Settlement Agreement is predicated on routine, robust supervision and positions staff with well-trained officers and supervisors are derived only from routine and regular exams.
The Year Ahead
With the completion of the new and revised policies and training, the year ahead must focus on the activities of officers and supervisors on the street. Supervisors must engage with officers to ensure their actions are consistent with the intent of the Settlement Agreement and that they complete their reports in a fashion that meets constitutional standards as well as comports with the data requirements. The MPD will use data on a regular basis to understand what is happening on the street. Conversations about community policing, what that means to the Department, and how commanders and supervisors communicate that to the patrol officers should occur at the command staff meetings.
The accumulation of data over the next six months will make the audit function, as well as the analysis function, integral to operations. The data need to tell the story of the street and it is incumbent upon the supervisors and command to ensure that officers are doing the best they can with their reports. The Audit Unit will be informative, though based on the duration of audits, audit reports are a lagging and not a leading indicator. Commanders along with data analysts need to create a dashboard for real time assessment of the work on the streets.
16 With the passage of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act (H.R 3355) in 1994, Congress authorized $8.8 billion in funds for six years. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS Office) in the U.S. Department of Justice was created to distribute and oversee those funds. Since 1994, the COPS Office has awarded in excess of $14 billion to advance community policing. https://cops.usdoj.gov/aboutcops 17 https://www.policefoundation.org/recruiting-selecting-and-retaining-law-enforcementofficers/ accessed 7/22/2019.
58
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 58 of 72 Document 143

Department leadership, along with those leading the compliance effort, need to engage the entire Department to understand the importance of and necessary steps to achieve compliance. Now that MPD has solidified internal operations for review, the effort to reach compliance must be spread across many more individuals in the Department.
In addition to regular data reviews and quarterly analysis, the Audit Unit will check supervisory behavior with a full audit. Supervisors receive feedback from Audit Unit and supervisors must report action back to the Audit Unit.
Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the Internal Affairs Division is required to prepare a report every six months of any violations of policies relating to supervisory matters. During the year since the Settlement Agreement was signed, the IAD has not produced a report on violations of policies related to supervisory matters. CJI expects details, including the release schedule, of this deliverable to be included in a six-month follow up report by CJI.
Also in the coming year, we will be reviewing the MPD performance review process to ensure that reviews include individual officer compliance with the legal and data collection requirements relating to stops and other encounters.
In accordance with the Settlement Agreement paragraph IV.C.6, MPD will prepare a community policing status report and submit the report to the FPC twice per year (in July and January). As noted above, we find the MPD non-compliant with this requirement and we look forward to seeing that report. There is a responsibility to the community, in addition to seeking their input on the community policing report, of the Defendants to maintain the Collaborative Community Committee (CCC).
While the CCC was tasked with producing a report with recommendations based on community input in response to the August 2017 leaked Department of Justice (DOJ) draft report, at this writing the report has neither been finalized nor published. It is unclear what intention the City has or what action it has taken to update, charge, or amend the membership of the CCC.
59
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 59 of 72 Document 143

PROCEDURES FOR COMPLAINTS
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement
The Settlement Agreement includes requirements related to complaints concerning MPD conduct both from members of the public and from within the Department. The requirements that apply to both MPD and FPC intend to improve the procedures related to complaints and to foster transparency around the nature of complaints received, the investigation process, and complaint resolution. Changes in policy, improved availability of complaint-related materials, enhanced supervisor and Internal Affairs Division (IAD) training, increased clarity around the personnel investigation process, and increased data sharing further these goals.
Pursuant to amendments to SOP 450 on Personnel Investigations, complaint forms as well as instructions for how to file complaints need to be available in English, Spanish, Hmong, and any other language the Parties determine appropriate. The forms and instructions need to be downloadable from both the MPD and FPC websites and available at libraries and police district stations. With some limited exceptions, MPD and FPC must accept all complaints, no matter the means of submission, and they are required to create an online submission portal. The Parties negotiated and agreed that complaints from juveniles, unaccompanied by a guardian, will be directed to the FPC via a hotline in district offices rather than accepted by MPD personnel. Supervisors will receive training on accepting all public complaints. MPD and FPC staff who accept complaints must not discourage members of the public from filing complaints.
The Settlement Agreement changes past practices and asserts that complaints do not need to be notarized, though identification may be verified at a later point in the process. If a personnel investigation results from a public complaint, Defendants must ensure that the complainant interview occurs outside the police headquarters, with few exceptions. MPD must create a protocol for the timeframe in which investigations of public complaints should be completed and require that supervisors review and approve anything open after 90 days, and every 30 days after that. Internal Affairs Division staff who are investigating complaints will participate in training with the intent of eliminating bias in favor of law enforcement.
MPD shall maintain a database containing all complaints about MPD conduct received by MPD. IAD must also maintain the number and outcome of all complaints received, regardless of the outcome. MPD must maintain the practice of the Early Intervention Program, providing notice to captains of an individual officer receiving three or more complaints within a 90-day period or three or more complaints over a rolling one year period. MPD will tally complaints into various groupings to improve understanding of staff performance and issues citywide and within each district or unit.
60
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 60 of 72 Document 143

In addition to requirements about the way MPD handles complaints, the Settlement Agreement outlines requirements for FPC. They must investigate all reasonable complaints submitted to it, review all internal complaints relating to MPD conduct, and create a database of such complaints. The database should include the same information as the MPD database. The FPC must keep a list of complaints against each officer and provide the Chief with information about officers who receive three or more complaints within 90 days or within a rolling one-year period, as previously stated.
Progress in Year One
Few of the Settlement Agreement requirements on improving procedures related to complaints came with specific year-one deadlines. Notable progress in this area will likely be documented in future annual reports. However, both MPD and FPC have made genuine efforts during the first year to satisfy and make progress on Agreement requirements related to complaints. Below are the ways in which MPD and FPC have made efforts in this area to date.
MPD
As described in the Policy Formulation section, MPD published a revised SOP 450 – Personnel Investigations on June 21, 2019. The MPD has developed complaint forms and a pamphlet of instructions about the complaint process for members of the public that is available in English, Spanish, and Hmong as required in the Settlement Agreement and those forms and instructions are available online through MPD’s website. The website provides information on how to file complaints in person, by phone, or by mail, as well as a link to the FPC’s website for complaints. As of this writing, the website or pamphlet of instructions does not provide an email address directly to the MPD for the public to submit complaints as required by the Settlement Agreement. MPD should establish and communicate via its website and printed materials an email address by which complaints can be submitted. Complaints are no longer required to be notarized, a requirement of the Settlement Agreement, and this was specifically covered during in-service training.
During the in-service training conducted between January and June 2019, trainers instructed MPD officers to accept complaints from any members of the public and not to deter or discourage a citizen from filing a complaint. For example, the training materials note, “Non-supervisory members shall in no way attempt to deter a citizen from making a complaint and are prohibited from questioning citizens as to the nature of the complaint. Supervisors shall in no way attempt to discourage the filing of a complaint by any member of the public.”
MPD has begun to develop a process for tracking supervisors contacting complainants including the date contacted, the location of the complainant interview, and a checklist of all requirements for case file contents and the components of investigative process.
61
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 61 of 72 Document 143

MPD has begun developing a protocol for complaint investigations timeframes and accountability mechanisms.
IAD investigators attended training on complaint investigations in January 2019. The Center for Public Safety at Northwestern University provided this 16-hour training. Defendants did not but should have consulted Plaintiffs’ counsel on having the training be conducted by Northwestern University rather than by an MPD Internal Affairs supervisor, as specified in SA IV.D.2.
FPC
FPC also has complaint forms available in English, Spanish, and Hmong. Instructions on how to submit a complaint are available online and by a pamphlet in English but the FPC still need to provide instructions in Spanish and Hmong. The FPC accepts complaints from the public in person, by phone, mail, email, and through an online portal. Complaints submitted to FPC do not need to be notarized, consistent with a requirement in the Settlement Agreement.
The Year Ahead
We did not witness any significant challenges during year one in the area of complaints but details about the format and content of complaint data were debated and refined. During the next year, MPD will finalize the protocols and procedures for complaint investigations and supervisory review. We will assess whether MPD is following the protocol of investigating complaints in the given timeframe, and review evidence that supervisors are reviewing and approving investigations that remain open after 90 days, and every 30 days thereafter. We will also be looking at whether MPD is tallying the number and outcome of complaints received and whether captains of officers who receive three or more complaints within a specified timeframe are notified. MPD also must tally complaints into groupings to understand staff performance and issues in their various districts, and we will assess whether they are doing this and the outcomes of their internal performance assessments.
In the year ahead, we will also be focusing on assessing the data and database where MPD and FPC store information about complaints in addition to understanding how the two agencies review and utilize the data. We will assess whether FPC is providing the Chief with information about officers who receive multiple complaints within a short time period outlined in the Settlement Agreement.
62
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 62 of 72 Document 143

AUDITS
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement
The FPC and MPD must audit data, dashboard camera footage, and body camera footage on all traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches every six months. The audit should identify the following:
• Officers who fail to conduct encounters with constitutional standards and principles put forth in the Settlement Agreement
• Officers who fail to properly document encounters, supervisors who fail to review subordinate officers’ reports for constitutional standards and principles in the Settlement Agreement
• Supervisors who fail to review subordinate officers’ documentation of encounters
• Supervisors who fail to re-train and/or discipline officers who conduct unreasonable, unreported, and insufficiently documented encounters
FPC and MPD will use audits to identify officers who need additional training on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches and/or discipline for officers who conduct unreasonable, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters. MPD is required to document FPC’s findings in the AIM database. MPD is also required to incorporate the findings from the audits into MPD’s Early Intervention Program.
The FPC must also conduct an audit of complaints submitted by members of the public to FPC and MPD to ensure that those responsible properly investigate complaints. FPC must publish data on all civilian complaints received by MPD and FPC on its website. The data must include the number of traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches without legal justification, whether the encounter was based on race or ethnicity, and whether the case is open or closed. They must include this data in aggregate form as well.
Progress in Year One
MPD
As it relates to auditing in police departments, MPD is ahead of the curve. While it likely could benefit from additional personnel, the MPD Audit Unit has established the foundation for conducting thorough audits. MPD conducts many of the current audits based on generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS), which are audit industry standard and rather rigorous.18 MPD has additionally invested a great
18 See Government Accountability Office website for more information on GAGAS at https://www.gao.gov/yellowbook/overview.
63
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 63 of 72 Document 143

deal of thought into the workflow and tracking of stops and encounters from officer contact through timely supervisor review and remedial training. This has laid the groundwork for the required audits under the Settlement Agreement.
The Settlement Agreement requires MPD to audit data, dashboard camera footage, and body camera footage on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches to identify officers who fail constitutional compliance, officers who fail to properly document, supervisors who fail to review documentation, and supervisors who fail to re-train or discipline. Therefore, the upcoming audits will focus on the revised policies and data collection practices that MPD has been developing since January 2019. Given that they completed training in June and that they have established a schedule for data extractions, MPD plans to begin audits in July. The Audit Unit examined a representative sample of stops commencing in March and throughout the first half of the year. Now that training is complete, the Unit will perform an audit on stops from the month of June 2019. MPD expects to deliver the first audit report late in calendar year 2019
The sergeant in charge of the Unit has already drafted audit-tracking forms for the Inspections Section. These documents intend to track and point out, in a timely fashion, alleged non-compliance with SOPs, Department training, and/or the Code of Conduct. Each form is completed after the Inspections Section conducts random reviews of field interviews, traffic stops, and no-action encounters based on data from TraCS, RMS, and any dash-cam or body-work camera video in order to ensure accountability and responsibility in accordance with standard operating procedure and training. The Audit Unit calls these random reviews cursory reviews and complete these on identified representative samples at regular intervals.
The tracking document guides the reviewer through a process verifying that all fields are completed and that the officer has documented reasonable suspicion. When issues arise, supervisors receive a notification form. The notification form was created to alert and direct the supervisor to address the issue, errors or areas of concern that are discovered during the reviews. Appropriate supervisory intervention allows for remedies that range from discussing with the employee the continued responsibility of conducting and documenting encounters in accordance with training, SOP, and the Code of Conduct, referral to remedial training (SOP 082.15) or an internal investigation.
As part of the audits that started in July, MPD sends out the notification after the second auditor has confirmed the error/concern. 19 The notification form must be returned to the Audit Unit communicating from the district/division a notification to the Audit Unit when and how an error is addressed. This process permits a continuous flow of notifications to increase compliance and reinforce training.
19 CJI has received documentation from MPD as evidence that the audits have started.
64
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 64 of 72 Document 143

FPC
FPC staff has worked diligently to prepare for the additional duties resulting from the Settlement Agreement. The staff at FPC regularly consults with CJI to understand their auditing role per the Agreement and clarify any confusion related to audits. However, they have found it a challenge to comply with their duties with their current level of resources and the recent departures of both the Executive Director and the Commission Chair complicate their efforts. They have in the past year hired new staff but unfortunately, those new employees were planned to address the workload prior to the Settlement Agreement. The departing Executive Director was forward thinking and steadfast in her efforts to prepare the office for their additional duties. However, the gap in time between her departure and the appointment of a new Executive Director stalled the reform work further. On July 30, 2019, Griselda Aldrete was confirmed as the new Executive Director of the FPC. The learning curve for the new Executive Director will be significant and the resources will remain an issue. As it stands, FPC does not believe it has the staff to carry out the audits required by the Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiffs’ counsel has indicated it understands the need for stability and time for the FPC to staff up for the increase in work requirements and CJI has suggested a workload study in order to gain insight into the additional resources that may be necessary to produce the audits in the way the Settlement Agreement intends. FPC needs to address the matter of staff resources with all speed and deliberateness. Certainly, should additional resources be necessary to meet the needs, the cooperative and collaborative spirit referenced elsewhere will be necessary to achieve the shared goal of compliance.
The Year Ahead
MPD
It appears that MPD is prepared to audit and report out on patterns, trends and problem officers based on current data collection efforts. In the coming months, we expect that they will finalize the process for how the district/division level counseling will be documented and tracked for analysis and auditing for compliance with the Settlement Agreement. MPD will also need to work to identify supervisors who receive counsel versus referral to IAD as well as how to track stops that go completely unreported by uniform and bureau members. They are currently working on these processes within MPD. We anticipate that next year we should begin to see analysis detailing patterns and trends regarding compliance. We should also be able to analyze the Department’s response to lack of compliance. Given many entities within MPD need to work collaboratively to achieve this, we anticipate challenges as this becomes implemented, but it will be a very good indication of how the Department as a whole has adjusted to new policy and training and their nimbleness in responding in real time. We expect that MPD will begin incorporating audit findings into their Early Intervention Program or some other mechanism to address officer inaccuracies with data entry. CJI expects to obtain written documentation of how these processes will work and will
65
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 65 of 72 Document 143

monitor the extent to which issues and problems are identified and how information feedback loops, to training in particular, are operating.
MPD will host a three-day Basic Law Enforcement Auditor Course from September 911, 2019 taught by the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). The course is designed to teach law enforcement professionals basic auditing skills to properly plan and conduct law enforcement performance audits. Dr. Jeffrey Phillips from LAPD will conduct a peer review of MPD’s Inspections Section when he is on site in September. LAPD has a well-respected Audit Division created in 2001 as required by a consent decree. Since 2004, the Division has instructed other police agencies and affiliates on the basics of auditing police functions.20
There are several important members of this framework eligible for retirement based on years of service. MPD should work to ensure continuity in this work and engage in thoughtful and deliberate succession planning so that progress and knowledge is not lost through retirements. Rigorous auditing is a critical piece of the work, not only for operations but also for community trust and transparency. The consistency and integrity of the system is important for the rank and file to course correct in a manner that is not unduly disruptive to operations.
FPC
In the year ahead, with a new Executive Director, we expect a thorough analysis of staffing assets and needs will be completed. We also expect that despite lack of resources, a comprehensive, prospective plan combined with management efforts that inspire work toward the requirements of the Settlement Agreement will be in place. MPD extended an invitation to FPC to join the LAPD led audit training. We hope that with the permanent leader in place, it will be easier to create the plan for reviews and audits.
FPC has been able to make some headway as it relates to publishing required data. They have successfully published complaint data on the website in the required categorizations; however, it does not currently report aggregate data. After some discussion with FPC leadership and staff, we are confident that FPC will be able to publish aggregate data in its second quarter posting. In addition, the Parties have agreed to ambiguous language from paragraph IV.E.5. and agreed that future data publications will include information regarding complaints received by the MPD as well as those received by the FPC. The FPC and MPD are working toward complying with this interpretation in future data postings.
20 http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/8772 accessed 7/16/2019.
66
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 66 of 72 Document 143

One challenge for FPC in publishing the complaint data is that the complaint database lacks the complaint categories outlined in the Settlement Agreement. Therefore, currently, the analyst at FPC manually categorizes complaints to fit into the required categories based on the narrative of the complaint. In the event that the narrative field in the complaint does not contain sufficient information for the analyst to categorize the complaint, the analyst consults with the FPC investigator and/or refers to the hard copy of the complaint. However, the FPC analyst is not able to consult with MPD investigators as easily, and does not have ready access to the hard copies of complaints received by MPD. We anticipate that FPC and MPD will work together to make this process more efficient and effective and preserve the intent of complainants.
67
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 67 of 72 Document 143

COUNSELING, RE-TRAINING, AND DISCIPLINE
Summary of Requirements in Settlement Agreement
The Settlement Agreement requires that the MPD create and maintain benchmarks and an alert system for employees who may be involved in three insufficiently documented, legally unsupported, or racially based traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, or searches over a rolling one-year period. MPD may discipline, counsel, re-train, suspend, or discharge the officer as appropriate. The Agreement requires that MPD issues discipline progressing in severity as the number of such sustained violations increases. MPD shall update SOPs to reflect the requirements of this Settlement Agreement in this area.
During training, MPD must ensure that officers understand the potential consequences of discipline, further training, or counseling, should an officer fail to conduct traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches in a lawful manner. Supervisors responsible for ensuring officers comply with constitutional standards shall be subject to investigations and the same consequences if they fail in their duties.
The Agreement states that if an officer, in a three-year period, is involved in four or more traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, or searches not supported by reasonable suspicion or probable cause, or not properly documented, the supervisor must refer that officer for investigation. Internal Affairs shall then conduct an investigation. When command staff or supervisors are determining sanctions or solutions, they will take into consideration the amount and context of complaints lodged against a given officer.
Progress in Year One
MPD is setting up the process for effective compliance consistent with the intent of the Settlement Agreement as it relates to officer adherence to new policies particularly around citizen contacts, field interviews, stops, and seizures. It is doing so through routine and repeated training, audits, supervisory review systems, and feedback loops. The process of counseling, re-training, and discipline relies on the adoption and distribution of, and training to the policies.
MPD revised SOP 085 Citizen Contacts, Field Interviews, Stops and Seizures and submitted it to the FPC on December 13, 2018. SOP 085 became effective and MPD distributed it to personnel on January 25, 2019. Over the course of training and the next several months, all officers certified their receipt and understanding of the revised policy. Not only are policies shared at roll call, MPD distributes revised policies via CERTT in both final and red lined versions. MPD routinely monitors the CERTT database to ensure that all affected parties (e.g., officers only or officers and civilians)
68
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 68 of 72 Document 143

in the Department have accessed, read, and understood the new or revised policy. (See Policy Formulation section of this report for a more complete outline of this process.)
Comprehensive training on SOP 085 commenced on January 2, 2019. Officers completed at minimum 16 hours of training, which the Training section of this report more thoroughly describes. In order to hold officers accountable to policy, it is widespread practice, and the procedure followed by MPD, that all officers and supervisors first receive training in the new policy as well as the ramifications for failure to follow policy before being held accountable to a new policy. MPD did not complete training on SOP 085 of all officers and supervisory personnel until June 18, 2019.
Irrespective of the training schedule, as officers completed training, they were encouraged and expected to follow the articulated requirements for all citizen contacts that require documentation including field interviews, traffic stops, searches and seizures, and no-action encounters. Based on conversations with supervisors, auditors, and trainers, we are aware that supervisors have been reviewing reports in the spirit of the new policy and making on scene corrections with officers. In addition, the Audit Unit is reviewing a sample of all reports.
During the first half of 2019, the Audit Unit within the Inspections Section of the IAD planned and tested plans for the routine review of reports and the formal audits. Since March 2019, the Audit Unit has been conducting cursory reviews of field interviews and traffic stops on an alternating weekly basis. The Department defines a cursory review as "a limited assessment of partial data sources conducted for insight of a question or issue. A cursory review may lead towards the initiation of a formal audit of policy or procedures."21 The Audit Unit conducts a cursory review of ten cases from all field interviews from a designated week running Sunday through Saturday. On the alternate week, the same process is used and they perform a cursory review of traffic stops. They conduct cursory reviews of no-action encounters weekly.
The Audit Unit shares the definition and expectations of a cursory review on every report written as a result of the review. If they identify issues during the reviews, they may conduct a full audit. Because they carried out cursory reviews contemporaneous with the training, not only were identified issues being reported to supervisors, they were addressed in training in real time. The weekly reviews also provide guidance to officers and supervisors with direct feedback on compliance with reporting issues overall, and serve as a routine oversight across individual officers and among groups of officers. Indeed, at least one internal investigation has been initiated as a result of the weekly oversight of the Audit Unit. This demonstrates that MPD, at the highest levels of the organization, is taking compliance seriously and communicating that
21 Quote from Sergeant Fishnick, Internal Affairs Division, Inspections Section.
69
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 69 of 72 Document 143

seriousness across the command. Moving forward, now that the formal training is completed, the Audit Unit will be communicating in writing to the Academy any issues that are detected and deemed a department-wide retraining issue.
From March to July 2019 the supervisory and cursory reviews focused on the counseling and re-training of officers and supervisors, not discipline. Commencing in July officers who submit or approve inappropriate, incomplete, or otherwise noncompliant reports will be subject to retraining, counseling, or discipline as appropriate. For every error found, the reviewer from the Audit Unit completes a form and sends it to the supervisor. Depending upon the nature of the error, the supervisor reviews and determines the next step – finding no error, or recommending counseling, re-training, or referring to internal investigation. The supervisor checks a box on the form and returns it to the Audit Unit. The Audit Unit created a system to track these forms to ensure full compliance – identification of error, action by the supervisor, and recording of both the action and the correction in the Audit Unit. There is also a form for a district to submit to the Internal Affairs Division when they discover and address an issue at that level.
Formal and routine audits will commence in July 2019. At that time, MPD will have fully trained all officers on the new policies—including the underlying legal standards and the expected practice on the street. In a January 15, 2019 memorandum to the Captain of the IAD, Sgt. Fishnick shared the planned audit schedule for the year showing the plan for audits of traffic stops, field interviews, and no-action encounters during the second half of calendar year 2019.
As individual case audits are completed, the Audit Unit will send out notifications after a second auditor confirms the error/concern. This process allows for a continuous flow of notification to the field to increase compliance and reinforce training.
After completion of the entire audit–team created Compliance/Performance Testing Instrument (CPTI), the Audit Unit will log and analyze findings.
Challenges in Year One
Scheduling training in a police department is always a challenge. Keeping shifts sufficiently staffed, working around vacations, holidays, and other seasonal festivals and planning for the upcoming DNC is complicated. The training semester at MPD runs from January through the end of May. Training all officers in state requirements as well as the required training associated with the Settlement Agreement and new or changed policies in the allotted time was predicated on a start of January 2, 2019. This was before FPC voted on the policies and before the Plaintiffs’ counsel reviewed and agreed to the training curricula.
70
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 70 of 72 Document 143

The Plaintiffs’ counsel observed training in mid-January. Comments—both positive and requests for modification—were shared with the Parties. MPD incorporated some changes and training was updated. CJI believes that the Plaintiffs’ counsel are satisfied with most but not all of the adjustments. CJI observed the training and reviewed all curricula including updates. Operational issues extended the semester into June and by June 18, 2019 all personnel were trained in the new or revised policies and practices required in the Settlement Agreement.
Implementing change that follows training must precede the enforcement of policies. Because MPD did not complete training until June 18, 2019, holding supervisors and officers accountable is delayed, yet planned. Postponing full enforcement until July is not akin to ignoring the importance of and responsibility for accountability. Instead, the delay in enforcement actions is a conscious response to the training calendar and the challenges of implementation in a police agency. The Audit Unit conducted reviews contemporaneous with training providing real time feedback to trainers and auditors as well as data for administrative commanders about the take up of training for officers and supervisors. The administrative teams (training, audit, and inspections) demonstrated careful planning and structure and set up the patrol division, the men, women and supervisors on the street, with the foundation to follow the policy, with appropriate behavior, and report in accordance with requirements.
The Year Ahead
MPD plans to commence its full audit function in July, a step that is crucial to the identification of officers, units, shifts or other groups that need counseling, re-training or discipline. The creation of the 2019 Terry Stop Frisk and Search Audit Work Plan Audit #19-03 sets the bi-annual plan to evaluate adherence with current MPD policies and procedures, specifically SOP 085. The Work Plan identifies and defines the criteria against which they will review and assess each type of report. The audit of each report (by type) begins with the review of the CAD, the RMS report, and/or the TraCS, the MPD Code of Conduct, the body worn camera (BWC) video, BWC logs, and Investigative Administrations Management (AIM) reports. The Audit Unit will similarly review the Wisconsin Probable Cause Statement and Judicial Determination forms (CR-215) and Milwaukee County Arrest and Detention Reports (PA-45) for all associated arrests. The first audit sample will be encompass the time period June 1 through June 30, 2019 and the Audit Unit will conduct the field work, data analysis, and report writing during quarters three and four of calendar year 2019. Commencing in January 2020, the audits will cover the six month periods July 1 through December 31 and January 1 through June 30.
With the backbone of training and audit functions strong and nimble, the work with supervisors and the men and women working on the street becomes the main objective. In the coming year, there needs to be an emphasis on and stated expectation
71
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 71 of 72 Document 143

for effective review of all reports with immediate counseling, re-training, or discipline as determined by the behavior. Departmental personnel cannot rely on the Audit Unit to identify issues, officers and supervisors on the street must understand the importance and value of getting this right. Commanders at all levels must stress the need for behavior changes on the street and in the documentation of their actions. Officers as well as supervisors must understand and believe they are accountable for cutting corners or writing poor reports. The data, as well as the quality of the reports will be reviewed to ensure compliance with the expectations of the Settlement Agreement.
CONCLUSION
This first annual report by CJI presents our detailed account of the efforts and activities that the Defendants have conducted during the first year of the Settlement Agreement. Much of the foundational work in the form of policy formulation and training has been done and establishing protocols and mechanisms for oversight is underway. This demonstrates good progress. We believe the personnel at MPD and the staff at the FPC working on these issues are committed to meeting the requirements of the Settlement Agreement in letter and in spirit. With any endeavor of this complexity and magnitude, challenges and delays are to be expected and were experienced. We will continue to work with the Defendants to address some of the challenges outlined above, particularly as they relate to data. We hope that in year two notable progress will be made on the oversight mechanisms currently being developed and that capacity issues both at MPD and FPC, including at the Commission level will improve. In order for this significant, multi-year initiative to be successful, the support and engagement of entities throughout the City are vital to achieving the desired reforms.
72
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 09/23/19 Page 72 of 72 Document 143

 </s> CITY OF MILWAUKEE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Semiannual Analysis of Traffic Stops, Field Interviews, No-action Encounters, and Frisks FEBRUARY 2020
PREPARED BY Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 1 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 2 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 3 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 4 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 5 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 6 of 24 Document 145

Decision Rule #1: “Speed Violation” stops demonstrate IOARS. Decision Rule #2: “Vehicle Registration Violation” and “Vehicle Equipment Violation” stops demonstrate IOARS if officers articulate the observable registration or equipment violation that prompted the stop.
Decision Rule #3: Stops that are not speed, vehicle registration, or vehicle equipment violations are examined to judge whether IOARS was present prior to initiating the stop.
Decision Rule #4: Field Interviews documented in RMS must include narrative that articulates IOARS was known prior to initiating the stop. Decision Rule #5: No-Action Encounters must include narrative that articulates IOARS was known prior to initiating the stop and an indication that the officer “quickly” disproved their initial suspicion after the stop began.
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 7 of 24 Document 145

Decision Rule #6: Frisks must meet the guidelines of SOP 085 and include narrative about the IOARS that the person is armed and immediately dangerous.
     
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 8 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 9 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 10 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 11 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 12 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 13 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 14 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 15 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 16 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 17 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 18 of 24 Document 145

The officer-written narratives regarding the justification for field interviews documented in RMS are far more complete than found in analysis before the Settlement Agreement.
The Department does not meet the Settlement Agreement requirements that fewer than 15 percent of traffic stops, field interviews, and no-action encounters fail to show individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion to support the stop.
The Department does not meet the Settlement Agreement requirement that fewer than 15 percent of frisks fail to show individualized, objective, and articulable reasonable suspicion that the subject is armed and dangerous.
Officers are not documenting every frisk.
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 19 of 24 Document 145

Most of the contraband seized during frisk encounters is obtained during frisks that were insufficiently justified. The contraband hit rate varies by race, and is lowest for subjects that are black.
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 20 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 21 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 22 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 23 of 24 Document 145

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 02/25/20 Page 24 of 24 Document 145

 </s> CITY OF MILWAUKEE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
First Six-Month Report on Non-Compliant Items MARCH 2020
PREPARED BY Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 1 of 16 Document 148

CONTENTS
Introduction ................................................................................................................................................. 3 Update on Non-Compliant Items ........................................................................................................5
SA Paragraph IV.A.2.c .........................................................................................................................5 SA Paragraph IV.A.12 ...........................................................................................................................5 SA Paragraph IV.C.1.a ..........................................................................................................................6 SA Paragraph IV.C.1.b-d......................................................................................................................7 SA Paragraph IV.C.3.............................................................................................................................9 SA Paragraph IV.C.6............................................................................................................................ 11 SA Paragraph IV.E.1.a-d ..................................................................................................................... 11 SA Paragraph VIII.2 ............................................................................................................................ 13 Areas of Progress and Challenges.................................................................................................... 14 Areas of Progress................................................................................................................................ 14 Challenges.............................................................................................................................................. 15 Conclusion.................................................................................................................................................. 16
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 2 of 16 Document 148

INTRODUCTION
The Settlement Agreement among the parties in Charles Collins, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al.1 stipulates that a Consultant provide the parties an annual report addressing compliance with the terms of the Agreement. In addition, the Agreement states:
Should the Consultant find that the Defendants are non-compliant with any of the requirements of this Agreement, the Consultant shall submit a report within six (6) months determining whether Defendants have rectified the issue(s). (SA V.A.1) 2
The Crime and Justice Institute (CJI), which serves as the Consultant per mutual approval of the parties, submitted our first annual report in September 20193. This sixmonth report provides an update on the progress and status of the items deemed noncompliant in our first annual report per SA V.A.1.
Over the past six months, we have worked closely with the Defendants to make progress in a variety of areas including, but not limited to:
• Focusing attention and resources on items that were deemed non-compliant in the first annual report;
• Developing internal procedures that establish or clarify work-flow processes related to the Settlement Agreement;
• Developing detailed, multi-year project plans to work toward full compliance; • Determining the evidence and documentation that will be needed to
demonstrate effective compliance for the individual requirements in the Settlement Agreement; • Continuing to refine and improve the quality of the required data extractions shared with the Consultant and Plaintiffs’ counsel on a quarterly basis; and • Working to improve collaboration among City agencies and communication amongst parties.
As of the writing of this report, CJI conducts weekly or bi-weekly virtual meetings with: • Chief Morales • MPD leadership and staff responsible for elements of the Settlement Agreement
1 Order and Settlement Agreement (July 23rd, 2018). Charles Collins, et al. v. City of Milwaukee, et al., (17-CV-00234-JPS) United States District Court Eastern District of Wisconsin, Milwaukee Division. 2 Citations to a specific paragraph of the Settlement Agreement will appear in this report as SA followed by the paragraph number. 3 https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/Reports/Crime-and-JusticeInstitute/CJIAnnualReport2019CityofMilwaukeeSettlementAgreement.pdf
3
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 3 of 16 Document 148

• Members of MPD’s Inspections Unit • FPC Executive Director Aldrete • FPC staff responsible for elements of the Settlement Agreement4
In addition, CJI has monthly calls with: • Plaintiffs’ counsel and affiliated representatives • Representatives from MPD, FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and CJI who are engaged with data aspects of the Agreement
CJI is also in regular communication with the offices of the Mayor, Common Council President, and City Attorney. All of this communication centers on developing and executing plans to implement the necessary procedure and practice changes within the FPC and MPD to achieve compliance with the requirements of the Agreement.
The items reviewed for compliance in our first annual report and reassessed here include Settlement Agreement requirements with specific delivery dates during the first year of the Agreement, as well as items expected at quarterly, six-month or 12month intervals. The categories of compliance we use in this assessment, unchanged from our first annual report, are as follows:
• Compliant: The Defendants have complied fully with the requirement and the requirement has been demonstrated to be adhered to in a meaningful way and/or effectively implemented.
• In Process: The Defendants have made sufficient, partial progress toward key components of a requirement of the Settlement Agreement but have not achieved or demonstrated full compliance. The Defendants may have made notable progress to technically comply with the requirement and/or policy, process, procedure, protocol, training, system, or other mechanism of the Settlement Agreement but have not yet demonstrated effective implementation. This includes instances where an insufficient span of time or volume of incidents have transpired for effective implementation in a systemic manner. It may capture a wide range of states, from the Defendants having taken only very limited steps toward compliance to being nearly in compliance.
• Non-Compliant: The Defendants have not complied with the relevant requirement of the Settlement Agreement. This includes instances in which the Defendant’s efforts may have begun but the Consultant has deemed those efforts insufficient.
In addition to providing updates on non-compliant items, we provide some general reflections on areas of overall progress and challenges that the Defendants have been experiencing during the previous six months. A comprehensive report of the
4 Throughout this report, FPC refers to the Executive Director and staff unless the language specifically includes the Commissioners.
4
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 4 of 16 Document 148

Defendants’ efforts and status on all aspects of the Settlement Agreement will be included in our second annual report, which is forthcoming in September 2020.
UPDATE ON NON-COMPLIANT ITEMS
In our first annual report, CJI found the Defendants to be non-compliant with regard to the paragraphs of the Settlement Agreement referenced below. For each of those items we include the relevant Settlement Agreement paragraph and requirement language, a description of why an item was deemed non-compliant in our the first annual report, any progress that has been made in the six months since that report, and an updated compliance status as of the six-month mark.
SA Paragraph IV.A.2.c
“Defendants shall ensure that all no-action encounters are documented in CAD.”
Progress Update:
The Settlement Agreement stipulates that the Defendants shall document no-action encounters in CAD, however, MPD modified their initial plan and is documenting noaction encounters in their records management system (RMS). While MPD’s reasons for this change may represent the best course of action, the City was required in accordance with SA VIII.2 to consult with the Plaintiffs’ counsel and seek agreement before making amendments. In our first annual report, we recommended the Defendants communicate the reasons for the change to the Plaintiffs’ counsel and obtain approval. As of the writing of this report, no such agreement between the City Attorney’s Office and Plaintiffs’ counsel has been brokered, and we find the Defendants to be non-compliant. We continue to encourage the City Attorney’s Office to communicate with the Plaintiffs’ counsel on this issue and obtain agreement.
Updated Status: Non-compliant
SA Paragraph IV.A.12
“Defendants shall ensure that MPD provides to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and the Consultant the codebooks and data dictionaries for users of TraCS, RMS, and CAD that clearly define every variable captured in records of traffic stops, field interviews, noaction encounters, frisks, and searches, as well as all values that each variable can be assigned.”
Progress Update:
While MPD provided data dictionaries and some code tables to the FPC, Plaintiffs’ counsel, and CJI to accompany the first three required quarterly data extractions, the
5
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 5 of 16 Document 148

documentation did not clearly define every variable captured in the records nor the values that each variable could be assigned. CJI gave detailed feedback to MPD on the initial dictionaries that highlighted changes needed to bring the data dictionary into compliance. MPD was responsive to that feedback and delivered a revised data dictionary on February 28, 2020 to accompany the fourth quarterly data extraction that clearly defined all variables and the values they could be assigned.
Updated Status: Compliant
SA Paragraph IV.C.1.a
“All reports of arrests, which are documented in the RMS system, will be reviewed and approved by a supervisor within the time period prescribed by SOP 263 Records Management [within 5 days]. The supervisor will review arrest reports for various matters, including the lawful basis for any traffic stop or field interview that led to the arrest, and the lawful basis for any frisk or search conducted during the encounter.”
Progress Update:
CJI noted in our first annual report that MPD was compliant regarding the timeliness of supervisor review, as MPD’s practices comply with state law that requires supervisory approval within 48 hours in order for a court commissioner or judge to conduct a probable cause hearing. However, CJI did not have sufficient documentation as of the first annual report to find MPD compliant regarding supervisors’ review of the lawful basis of a stop that led to an arrest or the lawful basis for any frisk or search.
SA IV.E.6 requires that MPD conduct an audit every six months to assess various aspects of encounters. As part of that auditing process, MPD is reviewing encounters specifically for supervisory review of arrest reports for the lawful basis of the arrest. Based on MPD’s first audits of field interviews and traffic stops (Audits #19-03 and #1904), in 100% of the audited arrest reports the supervisor reviewed arrest reports for the lawful basis for the field interview or traffic stop and/or any associated frisk or search. CJI has received and reviewed the audit sample of Arrest Detention Reports and Probable Cause Statements (CR-215) that demonstrate supervisors’ review of arrest reports for the lawful basis.
CJI will continue to review a sample of Arrest Detention Reports and Probable Cause Statements on at least an annual basis to ensure compliance with this requirement is maintained.
Updated Status: Compliant
6
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 6 of 16 Document 148

SA Paragraph IV.C.1.b-d
b. “Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD will achieve a practice of supervisory review, correction, and approval of 50% of all documentation of field interviews in RMS consistent with the timeframes set forth in SOP 085.20. Supervisors shall review for completeness, and shall review the stated basis for the field interview and any frisk and/or search conducted in the course of the field interview. Prior to approving reports for submission to RMS, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented.”
c. “Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD will achieve supervisory review, correction, and approval of every warning and citation issued by MPD officers in the course of a traffic stop or field interview, as recorded in TraCS within seven (7) days, consistent with the timeframe set forth in SOP 070. Supervisors shall review for completeness, and shall review the stated basis for the traffic stop, field interview, and any frisk and/or search conducted in the course of the traffic stop or field interview. Prior to approving reports for submission to TraCS, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented.”
d. “Within twelve (12) months of the date of this Agreement, MPD shall achieve supervisory review, correction, and approval of every no-action encounter documented in CAD within fourteen (14) days. Supervisors shall review for completeness and shall review the stated basis for the no-action encounter. Prior to approving reports as complete, supervisors shall ensure that officers provide any missing information to ensure all information required by paragraph IV.A.3 is documented5.”
Progress Update:
As noted in our first annual report, MPD did not reach compliance in a demonstrable way by the first anniversary date of the signed Agreement. This was in part based on MPD’s decision to postpone expectations of supervisory review until after the completion of training in June 2019.
Over the previous six months, MPD has begun designing and implementing processes and systems that will enable them to reach compliance on the above three items. The Department is building new features in their existing systems to allow for centralized, electronic tracking of supervisor review of field interviews, traffic stops, and no-action encounters for completeness and accuracy within the prescribed timeframes. They
5 MPD is recording no-action encounters in RMS rather than CAD.
7
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 7 of 16 Document 148

have developed a preliminary plan and remain in the early stages of implementation. While the plan MPD shared with CJI requires significantly more detail, including information about deadlines and deliverables, the documentation received as of the writing of this report indicates MPD is planning to do the following:
• MPD will transition from a hand-written, decentralized system to an electronic, centralized system where supervisors will be able to document non-disciplinary counseling resulting from incorrect or incomplete reports.
• Roll call sergeants will continue to run and review reports on each shift on a daily basis to ensure officers are completing their reports accurately and in a timely fashion. The chain of command will receive a written memo on insufficiently completed reports until a technology solution is in place.
• Shift lieutenants at the Districts will run reports once a week to ensure sergeants are properly reviewing and approving reports.
• A designated Compliance Officer will conduct bi-weekly checks for compliance issues with reports. If they identify any problems that sergeants and lieutenants did not identify and correct, then they will be corrected and a captain will document any subsequent counseling.
• District captains have designated one supervisor to serve as the Settlement Agreement point of contact. After receiving appropriate training, they will be responsible for conducting a cursory review every week at their respective Districts.
• Inspections will distribute a monthly management report to commanders that shows progress or lack thereof on compliance with these Settlement Agreement paragraphs.
MPD has demonstrated that conducting supervisory reviews of field interviews, traffic stops, and no-action encounters in a manner that is consistent with the Settlement Agreement is a priority and is engaging personnel at the district level. However, without centralized, electronic data collection to verify such practices, CJI is not in a position to determine whether MPD is meeting the thresholds for review outlined in the Settlement Agreement. The technology and policy changes currently in development should allow for sufficient documentation of field interviews, traffic stops, and no-action encounters allowing for an assessment by the time of CJI’s second annual report. While we deem these items to be in process rather than non-compliant because of the efforts made to date, much more work needs to be done to gain compliance.
Updated Status: In process
8
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 8 of 16 Document 148

SA Paragraph IV.C.3
“Defendants shall require MPD command staff to counsel, train, or to refer for retraining, any supervisor (e.g., sergeant or lieutenant) who is found through supervisory review to have failed to properly review and correct patrol officers who conduct an unreasonable, race- or ethnicity-based, unreported, or insufficiently documented traffic stop, field interview, no-action encounter, frisk, or search, or to properly refer such officers to counseling, training, or re-training. Appropriately qualified trainers from the Police Academy shall provide such re-training to the officer within thirty (30) days of such a finding. Every six (6) months, Internal Affairs will prepare a report for command staff of allegations of policy violations described above and any corrective actions taken.”
Progress Update:
SA IV.C.3 is comprised of several components, including command staff taking action when supervisors fail to properly review and correct officers regarding unreasonable, race- or ethnicity-based, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters; officers being retrained within 30 days; and Internal Affairs regularly preparing a report of allegations of policy violations for command staff. Our first annual report assessed compliance related to the Internal Affairs report on alleged violations, as it was required to be conducted every six months.
On February 28, 2020, MPD provided CJI a copy of the Internal Affairs Division (IAD) Report, “Allegations of Policy Violations”. The report includes violations of allegations covering the period July 1 through December 31, 2019. The report includes documentation of allegations of policy violations in the Administrative Investigative Management system (AIM) for disciplinary corrective action. The report also summarizes memorandums that address instances from that six-month period documenting non-disciplinary corrective action (including counseling and retraining) related to policy violations by officers and supervisors of Standard Operating Procedure 085 – Citizen Contacts, Field Interviews, Search and Seizure as related to the Settlement Agreement.
Of note, the IAD report states in the summary of findings: “During the stated time period, IAD found that the Department’s current procedures for documenting nondisciplinary corrective action is not sufficient to meet the requirements set forth in the Settlement Agreement. The Department lacks a centralized system that allows for the tracking of non-disciplinary corrective action.” As described above, the Department is currently working on a technological solution that allows for local data entry and central tracking and reporting of these items. Until the technological solution is completed and implemented and officers have been trained, supervisors have been directed to document all non-disciplinary corrective action related to field interviews,
9
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 9 of 16 Document 148

traffic stops, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches through a Department memorandum. The memorandum is to be forwarded to the Internal Affairs Division where they will be reviewed and manually tracked. MPD completed in-service training on Settlement Agreement requirements in June 2019 and allegations of policy violations included in the report are as of July 1, 2019. The Internal Affairs Division produced and submitted a report on policy violations from July 1 through December 2019. The first “Allegations of Policy Violations” report indicates that the Department understands the Settlement Agreement requirements, has an understanding of the issues that need to be addressed, and is working on a plan toward compliance. The report and communication with relevant MPD personnel demonstrates a recognition for the need to work across divisions and for a collaborative approach that relies on technology solutions for efficiency and accountability. While the first report on “Allegations of Policy Violations” represents an important step toward compliance, a significant amount of work lies ahead on the other components of this paragraph. However, with the improvements made to date and the plans for continued progress, we deem the Defendants to be in process on SA IV.C.3. Updated Status: In process
10
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 10 of 16 Document 148

SA Paragraph IV.C.6
“MPD shall complete a twice per year community policing status report and forward that report to the FPC.”
Progress Update:
MPD had not developed a community policing status report by the time of our first annual report in September 2019. As of the writing of this report, MPD has provided two documents to CJI representing a community policing status report. CJI provided MPD with written and verbal feedback on ways to strengthen the first document. The Department provided to CJI a revised community policing status report on February 28, 2020.
The Settlement Agreement stipulates that “MPD shall complete a twice per year community policing status report and forward that report to the FPC.” The Settlement Agreement provides no specific direction or explanation of expected content in a status report on community policing. MPD has endeavored to produce a report, but without knowledge of the negotiators’ intent on CJI’s part, it is difficult to assess what is actually expected and whether the reports that MPD has produced meet the intent of the requirement. In our experience across the nation, we have seen community policing reports that vary tremendously in level of detail, the extent to which they are grounded in research and data, the level of community engagement and input, and whether they incorporate long term planning. While it appears that MPD responded to CJI’s suggestions to strengthen the first document submitted, we think it is likely that the breadth of MPD’s most recent report does not represent the intent of the Agreement. It has become clear that gaining additional clarity on the expectations of a community policing status report at the time the Agreement was negotiated would be beneficial to allow CJI to better assess MPD’s submitted report. As such, for the purpose of this six-month report, we find the Defendants to be in process on this requirement.
Updated Status: In process
SA Paragraph IV.E.1.a-d
“Defendant FPC shall audit data, dashboard camera footage, and body camera footage on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches, every six (6) months to identify:
a. Officers who fail to conduct these encounters in compliance with constitutional standards and principles set forth in this Agreement;
11
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 11 of 16 Document 148

b. Officers who fail to properly document these encounters in accordance with the terms of this Agreement;
c. Supervisors who fail to properly review subordinate officers’ reports to identify officers who fail to conduct traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and/or searchers in compliance with constitutional standards and this Agreement, or to ensure that the encounters are properly documented in compliance with the terms of this Agreement; and
d. Supervisors who fail to require re-training and/or discipline for subordinate officers who conduct unreasonable, unreported, or insufficiently documented encounters.”
Progress Update:
CJI found the Defendants to be non-compliant on this item in our first annual report largely because, at the time, the FPC did not have access to the data necessary to complete this requirement. However, access to data is only one of many components needed to become compliant. Some progress has been made over the last six months in terms of coordination between MPD and FPC regarding data sharing, but we find the steps taken by the FPC to become compliant in this area to be less than satisfactory. Drafting and refining audit plans, identifying and securing adequate resources, recruiting and hiring in conjunction with the City’s Department of Employee Relations, and establishing systems and work-flow processes are all essential parts of this effort and inadequate progress has been made to date.
To be sure, the FPC has taken some initial steps in this area including: engaging a consultant to conduct a staffing and capacity assessment; drafting initial audit plans with timelines and estimated personnel hours; and collaborating with MPD for training on and access to the data and materials necessary to conduct the audits. However, these are relatively small steps towards the significant task of conducting audits on traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches every six months. In order to fully deliver on this requirement, the FPC needs not only a robust audit plan, but also appropriately trained and experienced staff. Presently the FPC has one trained auditor on staff instead of a more realistic four auditors managed by a seasoned supervisor. CJI hopes that there can be a multi-agency, urgent response to recruit, hire, and train audit staff to implement the proposed plan.
The FPC consultant, Modern Policing, assessed the FPC’s audit capacity relative to the requirements of the Settlement Agreement. An initial site visit occurred in January 2020 and a full report from Modern Policing is forthcoming. A draft summary of Modern Policing’s initial findings were shared with CJI, and they indicate a significant amount of work remains to be done before FPC will be in a position to conduct the required audits every six months. The FPC’s initial audit plans need to be restructured;
12
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 12 of 16 Document 148

additional staff are needed to conduct the audits; training for FPC is needed; and policies and systems need to be established. Updated Status: Non-compliant
SA Paragraph VIII.2
“No amendments of this Agreement will be valid unless made in writing and signed by all of the signatories hereto.” Progress Update: During the first year of the Settlement Agreement, CJI found that the Defendants made amendments to the Agreement without consulting or communicating with Plaintiffs’ counsel. In our first annual report we identified three instances of such amendments:
• Documenting no-action encounters in RMS rather than CAD (IV.A.2.c), • Planned delays in achieving supervisory review thresholds (IV.C.1.a-d), and • Training conducted by Northwestern University rather than an Internal Affairs
supervisor (IV.D.2). CJI recommended to the Defendants that they communicate with the Plaintiffs’ counsel in writing the reasons for these modifications and obtain written consent to indicate approval of such changes. As of the writing of this report, no agreement has been reached between the City Attorney’s Office and Plaintiffs’ counsel. We find the Defendants to be non-compliant and continue to encourage the City Attorney’s Office to work with the Plaintiffs’ counsel on these issues. Updated Status: Non-compliant
13
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 13 of 16 Document 148

AREAS OF PROGRESS AND CHALLENGES
This report provides updates on the items deemed non-compliant in the first year of the Settlement Agreement. The Defendants have continued to make progress and experience challenges over the last six months beyond what is presented above. We take this six-month report as an opportunity to highlight some of those issues. This is not a comprehensive assessment of the Defendant’s efforts toward compliance in all areas but rather presents the highlights of efforts toward compliance with the Settlement Agreement since September 2019.
Areas of Progress
Both the FPC and MPD have increased the number of staff who are responsible for working toward compliance with the Settlement Agreement. In the fall of 2019, the FPC hired a new staff member whose primary responsibility is to manage and coordinate the FPC’s overall efforts toward compliance. In addition, the MPD has assigned several staff members to focus on compliance efforts at several levels. These staff include a captain with a background in Internal Affairs, Inspections, Patrol, and Administration, a sergeant who is leading the development and monitoring of a Department-wide project management tool, and supervisors from each District who will serve as the point of contact for the Settlement Agreement. This increase in human resources at both agencies is encouraging and signals a focus on the Settlement Agreement. Full compliance will require the participation and commitment from many more at each agency, but identifying individuals to coordinate and manage the work is positive progress.
Both the FPC and the MPD have been working closely with CJI on a weekly basis to develop and maintain overall project management tools. The tools identify responsible entities within an agency, include information about what documentation is necessary to demonstrate compliance, and provide due dates for interim milestones, the status of each item, and overall deadlines. While the Defendants should have instituted such centralized project planning sooner and work remains on refining these project management tools, progress in this area over the last six months is notable. Indeed, without such centralized and detailed plans, gaining full compliance will be extremely and unnecessarily difficult.
The Defendants have also made progress on many of the items assessed in our first annual report as in process. Our second annual report will include a detailed update on the status of all of those in process items. Generally, progress involves the content and quality of the required quarterly data extraction, the publication of raw data on traffic stops, field interviews, and no-action encounters, items related to accepting and processing complaints, and MPD conducting audits.
14
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 14 of 16 Document 148

Challenges
The Defendants have continued to wrestle with challenges in achieving compliance in several areas. As described in our first annual report and mentioned above under our discussion of SA IV.E.1a-d (FPC audits), we continue to believe that the FPC does not currently have the capacity to meet the requirements of the Settlement Agreement.
The Defendants have also struggled with how to handle the existence of personally identifiable information (PII) related to private individuals and officers involved in traffic stops, field interviews, and no-action encounters. Considerable time and effort have been dedicated to rectifying this sensitive and thorny issue but work remains. The Defendants have not sufficiently prioritized the issue of redacting PII from the data and this has resulted in delays and an inefficient allocation of resources. Challenges related to PII redaction have resulted in the delivery of quarterly data extractions later than originally planned. We continue to urge the Defendants to develop a clear and efficient process to redact PII from the data.
The Settlement Agreement states that “video footage concerning traffic stops, field interviews, no-action encounters, frisks, and searches shall be easily and quickly made available to the Consultant upon request, and no later than seven (7) calendar days from the date of the request” (SA IV.A.7). MPD has encountered challenges in fulfilling such a request resulting in significant delays over the course of months. Issues, again, related to PII redaction and the timely response of the City Attorney’s Office are some of the reasons for the delays. We are continuing to work with the MPD and the City Attorney’s Office to establish a process such that fulfillment of video requests occurs within the required timeframe.
Lastly, we continue to believe that the infrequency and nature of communication among the FPC, MPD, the City Attorney’s Office, and other City stakeholders is a barrier to the City making progress toward and achieving compliance. Many Settlement Agreement requirements necessitate the FPC staff and MPD working collaboratively to achieve compliance, often with the input from the City Attorney’s Office. We believe increased collaboration and coordination on the part of these three key entities will create efficiencies and improve efforts toward compliance.
15
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 15 of 16 Document 148

CONCLUSION
Of the items deemed non-compliant in CJI’s first annual report from September 2019, the Defendants have become compliant in some areas, have demonstrated varying levels of progress in others, and remain non-compliant in others. The increased attention and participation of personnel at various levels within the key organizations is encouraging, as is the development of overall project plans and management tools. As we stated in our first report, this kind of comprehensive and sustainable change is difficult, and challenges and delays are inevitable. Achieving full and effective compliance is a process and Milwaukee’s level of compliance varies across the issues. We continue to work with the Defendants toward the goal of full compliance with all requirements of the Settlement Agreement. Our second annual report will go into greater detail on the progress, challenges, and compliance status of the Defendants with respect to the requirements of the full Settlement Agreement.
16
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 04/17/20 Page 16 of 16 Document 148

 </s> CITY OF MILWAUKEE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
Semiannual Analysis of Traffic Stops, Field Interviews, No-action Encounters, and Frisks JUNE 2020
PREPARED BY Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 1 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 2 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 3 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 4 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 5 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 6 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 7 of 24 Document 152

     
Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 8 of 24 Document 152

60.0% 50.0% 40.0%

52.3% 47.2%

30.0% 20.0%

24.2% 17.7%

10.0% 0.0%

5.3% 6.5%

10.6% 8.9%

9.5% 6.9%

2.9% 0.8%

6.9% 0.4%

Under 18 18-29 yrs old 30-39 yrs old 40-49 yrs old 50-59 yrs old 60 and older Missing

Encounters (n=379) Frisks (n=260)

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

93.5% 68.1%

30.1%

Male

6.5%
Female Encounters (n=379) Frisks (n=260)

1.9% 0.0% Missing

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 9 of 24 Document 152

90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0%
0.0%

80.0% 59.9%
Black

23.2%

10.0%

12.4% 9.2%

2.7% 0.0%

White

Hispanic/Latino

Other

Encounters (n=379) Frisks (n=260)

1.9% 0.8% Missing

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 10 of 24 Document 152

100.0% 90.0% 80.0% 70.0% 60.0% 50.0% 40.0% 30.0% 20.0% 10.0% 0.0%

91.7% 63.5%

91.5% 57.9%

Traffic Stops

Field Interviews Jan.-June 2019 July-Dec. 2019

84.2% 85% Goal
50.0%
No-Action Encounters

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 11 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 12 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 13 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 14 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 15 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 16 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 17 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 18 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 19 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 20 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 21 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 22 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 23 of 24 Document 152

Case 2:17-cv-00234-JPS Filed 06/05/20 Page 24 of 24 Document 152


[CONTENT] ACLU | ACLU | Wisconsin | Covington & Burling | the Milwaukee Police Department's ||| the Eastern District | February 22, 2017 ||| Section 1983 | Milwaukee | the Fourth Amendment's | the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause ||| Section 2000d | Milwaukee | Title VI of the Civil Rights Act |||  ||| MPD | January 7th, 2008 ||| 2008 | Milwaukee | MPD ||| 2007 to 2015 ||| Latino ||| Latino | Milwaukee | Latino ||| September 2017 | the fall of 2017 | the spring and summer of 2018 ||| July 23, 2018 ||| MPD | MPD ||| The District Court | the Eastern District | Wisconsin | J. P. Stadtmueller ||| MPD ||| five years ||| ACLU | CJI ||| 1,900,000 | Milwaukee | CJI |||  ||| MPD | quarterly ||| CJI | each year | MPD ||| MPD | CJI | six-month ||| CJI | September of 2019 | six-month | MPD | April of 2020 | second | Jun 5, 2020 [SUMMARY] Plaintiffs, ACLU national and the ACLU of Wisconsin, along with Covington & Burling attorneys, filed this class action alleging that the Milwaukee Police Department's (MPD) stop-and-frisk policies were unconstitutional. The case was filed in the Eastern District of Wisconsin on February 22, 2017. The complaint alleged under Section 1983 that Milwaukee's stop-and-frisk policies violated the Fourth Amendment's search and seizure protections as well as the Fourteenth Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. It also alleged under Section 2000d that Milwaukee was in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as attorney's fees and costs. 

This case was brought as a class action on behalf of all persons who had been or would have been stopped by MPD officers after January 7th, 2008. More broadly, the complaint alleged that in 2008, when Milwaukee adopted a "broken windows" policy regarding crime prevention, MPD began engaging in high-volume, suspicion-less stops as well as stops illegally motivated by race and ethnicity. The complaint alleges a formal and informal quota system of stops that led to a threefold increase in stops from 2007 to 2015. Plaintiffs also defined a subclass of black and Latino individuals. All of the named plaintiffs in the class were black or Latino, and the complaint detailed specific allegations of suspicion-less stops for each of them as well as data indicating the impact that Milwaukee's stop-and-frisk policy had specifically on black and Latino communities.   

The parties were engaged in negotiations almost from the beginning - a Joint Interim Settlement Report was filed in September 2017, and minute orders show that the parties were engaged in mediation and later settlement negotiations throughout the fall of 2017 and into the spring and summer of 2018. A settlement was approved on July 23, 2018. The settlement covers a range of issues: changes to officer training; revisions to MPD policies and guidelines regarding reasonable suspicion and probable cause; body camera usage; data collection, coding, and publication; timely filing of reports after stops; supervision from within MPD for officers conducting stops; procedures for both external and internal complaints regarding stop-and-frisk; data auditing by MPD; hiring, counseling, retraining, and discipline; and community engagement. 

The District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin retained jurisdiction to enforce the agreement under Judge J. P. Stadtmueller. To achieve compliance with the agreement, MPD must incorporate all substantive parts of the agreement into policy, hire and train needed personnel, appropriate sufficient funds, and show sustained and continuing improvement on constitutional policing based on a variety of data-based factors. The settlement terminates after five years. The ACLU and an outside consultant (CJI) will act as monitors. The settlement indicates $1,900,000 in attorney's fees and costs, and Milwaukee is also responsible for paying for CJI's fees. 

<b>Current status</b>
MPD is required to provide data on variety of police and civilian interactions quarterly, and to make training and policy materials available for review. CJI is to file a report each year regarding MPD's compliance and their review of relevant data. If MPD is non-compliant, CJI can submit six-month updates on those issues, indicating whether they have been fixed. The case is ongoing: CJI filed an initial report in September of 2019, a six-month report indicating items on which MPD is non-compliant in April of 2020, and a second semi-annual report on Jun 5, 2020. 