Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight Investigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays Cross Street review resolution amid legal, investigative concerns
Summary
Council debated a proposed resolution directing a review of police policies for the 1111 Cross Street incident. Members and the city attorney discussed third‑party investigation needs, subpoena powers, and potential conflicts with ongoing criminal investigations; council postponed the resolution to allow further planning and coordination with county partners.
The council spent more than an hour debating a proposed resolution asking the Ypsilanti Police Advisory Commission (YPAC) and city staff to examine city policies and response related to the January Cross Street incident.
The resolution’s sponsor said the community wanted fast answers about when decisions were made, which protocols applied, who had command authority, and whether communications to affected residents were adequate. The sponsor asked for a 90‑day review and written presentation back to council with recommendations.
City leaders and the city attorney urged caution. The city manager recommended council first outline criteria for selecting an independent investigator with subpoena power if needed; the attorney warned about potential conflicts with pending criminal proceedings, the constitutional rights of the person charged, and the risk of creating material that could affect prosecution or defense. Several council members said the public needed visible action and recommended a staged approach: (1) short‑term internal policy mapping and redaction‑sensitive review of footage; (2) an agreed scope for any outside investigation; and (3) coordination with county and state investigators to avoid duplication.
Council members ultimately voted to postpone consideration of the full resolution until a specified check‑in date (the next meeting in March). They asked staff to meet with the chief, the city manager and the attorney to produce a timeline and a narrow list of tasks that can be completed without jeopardizing legal proceedings; those items include identifying which policies and protocols relate to the incident, and preparing a preliminary report on what can be reviewed publicly without compromising rights or safety.
Supporters said an independent third party with law‑enforcement investigative experience will likely be necessary for a comprehensive review; several members asked staff to coordinate with Washtenaw County officials and to return with a proposed scope and cost estimate. The motion to postpone carried with a recorded roll call and a plan to revisit the matter in March.
