Board Votes to Wait for City Bodycam Lawsuit Ruling

Police body camera. Photo by Ryan Johnson, (CC BY-SA 2.0), via Wikimedia Commons

The Milwaukee County Board will wait for a ruling on a lawsuit over a City of Milwaukee body camera policy before recommending a similar one to the Sheriff’s Office.

Under the city policy, if someone is killed or injured by an officer, or in their custody, any video evidence must be released to families in 48 hours and the public in 15 days. The video evidence includes body camera, dash camera and any other video evidence. The policy never went into effect. The Milwaukee Police Association, the union representing Milwaukee police, filed a lawsuit and a circuit court judge ordered the city not to implement it until the suit ran its course.

Sup. Ryan Clancy sponsored a resolution requesting the Milwaukee County Sheriff‘s Office (MCSO), the District Attorney’s Office, the Community Reintegration Center (CRC) and the Vel R. Phillips Juvenile Detention Center develop a policy similar to the city’s, as Urban Milwaukee has reported.

The board does not have the authority to set county policy for the MCSO. The resolution could only recommend the policy to Sheriff Denita Ball, whose administration has argued against the policy.

Clancy, who has co-sponsorship from Supervisors Juan Miguel Martinez and Caroline Gómez-Tom, said the current rules for the release of video is being abused by the MCSO and causing “untold harm to people.” In Wisconsin, the release of video evidence by law enforcement agencies is governed by state open records law.

During their meeting Thursday, a majority of the board voted to refer the policy to the county’s attorneys until there is a decision on the city’s lawsuit. Circuit Court Judge Brittany Grayson is expected to issue a ruling in March.

Sup. Shawn Rolland made the motion and said, “I think there may be more people in this room than the authors realize that might be willing to support this, or something very like this, if this lawsuit piece of the puzzle resolves itself.”

That the city policy remains in legal purgatory and that a decision on the lawsuit is expected before the board’s next meeting was the primary argument supervisors made in support of holding off on a decision. Other supervisors questioned the urgency Clancy expressed for passing a resolution that couldn’t be enforced in the first place.

Sup. Deanna Alexander applauded Clancy’s effort to get the resolution passed, adding that she has “a lot of compassion for the goals and some of the things that he stated.” The resolution has been considered by supervisors several times since it was introduced in September, and Alexander said, “But there’s a reason that we haven’t moved forward with a solid decision on adopting this, and it’s because there’s a lawsuit pending.”

This sentiment was echoed by Sup. Peter Burgelis, saying, “This resolution wants us to pass a policy that essentially mirrors something that’s under litigation. How can we make an informed decision on this if it’s still in the courts?”

Corporation Counsel Margaret Daun told supervisors that the circuit court decision could be appealed by the police association, but the board would at least have the ruling of a trial court in March.

Martinez, who co-sponsored the resolution, said the resolution was a way to communicate to constituents and victims of police brutality, “that we are going to hold the sheriff’s department accountable and that we just require transparency.” Ultimately, he supported deferring a decision until after the lawsuit has a ruling, explaining that he didn’t want to see the resolution fail, adding “but I will continue to fight for this as well.”

The vote was 12 to six, with Clancy, Priscilla E. Coggs-Jones, Gómez-Tom, Steven Shea, Sequanna Taylor and Chairwoman Marcelia Nicholson voting against sending it to the county’s attorneys for now.