Kenosha County reviews Jensen Hughes emergency-readiness assessment; county attorney updates 2020 unrest litigation

Attorney Sam Hall, representing Kenosha County, delivered an update to the Kenosha County Board of Supervisors on pending civil litigation tied to the August 2020 unrest and introduced an emergency‑readiness assessment by Jensen Hughes.

Hall told supervisors there are three active cases connected to the unrest: a suit by reporters Alyssa Shukar and Scott Olsen alleging they were struck with rubber bullets; a suit by Justin Blake (Jacob Blake’s uncle) over use of a restraint chair during booking; and consolidated claims by the estates of Anthony Huber and Gage Grosskreutz arising from the Kyle Rittenhouse shootings. On the Shukar and Olsen matter, Hall said “those cases are now fully through discovery” and that the county has filed a motion for summary judgment he described as fully briefed and awaiting a judge’s decision. He said the Justin Blake case likewise has finished discovery and is before the court on a summary‑judgment motion. On the Huber–Grosskreutz cases, Hall said the litigation remains the most time‑consuming and complex: plaintiffs have not yet disclosed experts, defense expert deadlines are months away and a county summary‑judgment filing “is not due until March of 2026.” Hall added that discovery has produced “hundreds of thousands, if not north of a million pages of documents and reports” from responding law enforcement agencies.

Hall cautioned that because the meeting was in open session his comments were limited to material already public, but he said the litigation is active and that portions of the cases may be discussed in closed session at a future date.

Hall also introduced Jensen Hughes’ emergency‑readiness assessment, which he characterized as an “emergency readiness assessment” rather than a formal after‑action review. He summarized five themes he viewed as most notable: 1) the county’s Emergency Management Division (EMD) did not operate with ideal efficiency during the unrest and calls for assistance came through multiple, unstreamlined channels; 2) hesitancy to activate the Emergency Operations Center (EOC), and a recommendation that the EOC be used more regularly so participants gain familiarity; 3) gaps in public communications and a need to strengthen the county’s direct messaging rather than relying only on third‑party media; 4) a recommendation to increase tabletop exercises and involve private‑sector stakeholders and non‑government partners in preparedness drills; and 5) periodic recommendations to review policies — Hall emphasized that existing sheriff’s office policies are constitutional and are sourced through Lexipol, though he said policy review is appropriate.

Sheriff’s office remarks outlined steps the office is taking in response. The sheriff (name not specified in the public transcript) said, “Activation of the emergency operation center, it will take place when it's appropriate and needed and without hesitation.” He said emergency management staff have received director‑level training, that the county’s comprehensive emergency management plan (SEMP) is being updated in coordination with Wisconsin Emergency Management (WEM) with a target completion in mid‑2026, and that a tabletop exercise is scheduled for 2027 through the integrated preparedness training plan. The sheriff also described a recent technology rollout: the county is implementing ReadyOp, a web‑based platform for planning, response and communications; the sheriff noted ReadyOp’s use by large organizations and other counties as an example of the product’s capabilities.

Supervisor Grady asked to be kept informed about EOC utilization and training exercises; the sheriff agreed to provide a presentation and training so supervisors could see how the EOC operates and who participates. Hall said the report is forward‑looking and not limited to unrest, noting the need to be prepared for other emergencies such as severe weather.

Discussion distinction: Hall’s remarks and the Jensen Hughes assessment were presented for board information; the meeting record shows no formal county policy change or mandate voted that evening. The board was given contacts (Hall, Joe Cardamone, the sheriff’s office and Chief Deputy Miller) for follow‑up questions.

Ending: The board did not take immediate action on the readiness assessment during the meeting; supervisors requested further briefings and training demonstrations, and Hall warned some litigation matters may be discussed later in closed session.