Lifetime Citizen Portal Access — AI Briefings, Alerts & Unlimited Follows
Panel upholds 7‑day suspension for MPD officer over domestic‑violence response
Loading...
Summary
A disciplinary panel sustained a seven‑working‑day suspension for Officer Williamson, finding failures to fully investigate and to make a mandatory domestic‑violence arrest; the decision was unanimous after testimony from MPD command staff and character witnesses.
A Milwaukee disciplinary panel on Dec. 11 sustained a seven‑working‑day suspension for Officer Williamson for failures to investigate and to make a mandatory arrest during a May 2023 domestic‑violence response, the panel announced after closed‑door deliberations.
The panel’s ruling upheld Personnel Order 2025‑161, citing two sustained charges: a competence violation (guiding principle 1.04) for failing to conduct a prompt, thorough investigation and prepare required reports, and a violation of MPD SOP 1.14.10 for not making a mandatory domestic‑violence arrest when the statutory elements could be established. Chair Miriam Horwitz announced the commission’s unanimous vote to sustain the discipline and said the panel considered Williamson’s prior service and character in setting the penalty.
Assistant Chief Craig Sarno, who oversees administration and the discipline review process, told commissioners the department presented the case to Chief Norman on Aug. 4 using its standard materials: the investigative summary, the employee case file history, the discipline matrix and comparable personnel decisions. Sarno said comparable cases involving failures to make mandatory arrests typically led the chief to impose at least five days’ suspension for the SOP violation; in this case the chief imposed five days for that charge and two days for the failure‑to‑investigate charge, for a total of seven working days. “We reviewed the genesis of the case, the statements, the PI‑21 interview and the discipline matrix,” Sarno said. “Everything is balanced against the discipline matrix and comparable cases before the chief makes a decision.”
The record includes a body‑worn camera recording from the night of the call and later follow‑up where a different officer arrested the suspect after visible injuries were reported. The commission heard testimony that no arrest or written report was completed by Williamson and his partner at the initial response. Sarno told the panel the department’s policy and Wisconsin statute (referencing the state mandatory‑arrest requirement for certain domestic‑violence incidents) guided the discipline decision.
Officer Williamson testified and acknowledged responsibility for aspects of the response, but argued the aggregate seven‑day suspension was excessive given his service record and mitigation factors. Williamson told the commission he believed at the time there was insufficient probable cause to make an arrest and emphasized his community work and lack of prior sustained discipline. He proposed a reduced sanction — recommending a short suspension paired with volunteer work — and said he would accept community service in lieu of additional suspension time.
The panel weighed the department’s comparables and the admission in Williamson’s own PI‑21 statement that, “in hindsight, my partner and I should have done a further credibility determination and should have made an arrest and write a report,” language commissioners cited when explaining their decision. After deliberations in closed session, the commission announced it would sustain the seven‑day suspension but also noted Williamson’s integrity and prior record when explaining that the penalty may delay — but not permanently bar — future promotions.
Chair Horwitz told Williamson the commission would provide a written decision as soon as practicable and that parties had waived the 10‑day rule for issuing the written order. The hearing adjourned following the announcement.
The personnel order and the commission’s written decision will provide the formal disposition and any further administrative details.
