Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Milwaukee Police update SOPs on OWI, juvenile detention clock and domestic violence; commission reviews changes
Summary
The Fire and Police Commission reviewed a Milwaukee Police Department communication summarizing amendments to SOPs on operating-while-intoxicated tests, juvenile procedures including the six-hour secure custody limit, and domestic violence reporting and liaison roles; commissioners asked clarifying questions but took no formal action.
The Milwaukee Fire and Police Commission reviewed a communication from the Milwaukee Police Department on July 10 that summarized revisions to several MPD standard operating procedures, including SOP 120 (operating while intoxicated), SOP 140 (juvenile procedures), SOP 114 (domestic violence) and SOP 267 (budget and finance). No formal action was required on the communication.
Commissioners asked questions about key operational changes and sought clarifications on how the revisions would be applied in the field. The department representative said the changes ranged from administrative updates (SOP 267) to substantive policy clarifications stemming from state guidance and recent court decisions.
The department noted three principal changes to the OWI SOP. It removed references to urine testing — saying the Wisconsin State Laboratory of Hygiene advised urine tests have little or no value for OWI prosecutions — and clarified procedures when blood is the primary chemical test, including that officers should convey subjects to a nearby hospital or medical facility (which need not be the closest hospital). The revision also states that certain past convictions — described in the policy as implied consent (IC) convictions or prohibited alcohol concentration (PAC) notations — do not always count as prior convictions when classifying OWI offenses, reflecting recent guidance and case law cited by the department.
On juvenile procedures (SOP 140), the department said it added a statutory definition of a "secure detention area" and clarified how the six-hour secure custody time limit is measured. Per the department, and based on clarification from the Wisconsin Department of Corrections, the six-hour clock starts and stops depending on the juvenile's presence in a secure detention area or changes in custody status; secure custody refers specifically to placement in a cell block or similar holding area within a police facility. Commissioners requested and received a promise to receive written follow-up clarifying whether time spent in a squad car or in juvenile interview rooms counts toward the six-hour limit.
On domestic violence (SOP 114), the department said it added requirements that members contact the domestic violence hotline and complete a supplementary incident report (the yellow DV form) in cases involving alleged violations of restraining or no-contact orders when no new violence or threats are present. The policy also incorporates the Domestic Violence High Risk Team (DVHRT) and domestic-violence liaison officers (DVLOs) and describes procedures when victims do not want their information released to the DV hotline. The MPD representative said some additions were made in response to recommendations from a recent Fire and Police Commission DV audit.
Commissioners pressed for operational safeguards. One commissioner asked whether officers could take juveniles out of secure custody solely to restart the six-hour clock; the department representative said juveniles would be removed from secure custody only for a valid law-enforcement purpose (for example, for an interview) and said the department does not intend to manipulate custody status to extend detention. Commissioners also sought clarification on the interaction between the juvenile interview-room policy (which the board previously clarified is not a secure detention area) and the six-hour rule; the department pledged a written follow-up to ensure consistent application.
Because this item was filed as a communication, the commission did not vote or take further action during the meeting. The department said additional explanatory material and links to the cited statutory language and state guidance would be provided to commissioners.
The commission's review put operational clarifications and procedural guidance in front of commissioners but did not adopt new rules or require formal approval at the July 10 meeting. The department indicated some changes reflect recent court interpretations and state-agency guidance and that the remaining updates are administrative.
