Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Of Force Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Alderman’s motion to restore reporting when officers draw firearms sparks debate at FPC meeting
Summary
A common-council motion would restore a requirement in MPD SOP 4-60 that supervisors file a use-of-force report when officers draw or display a firearm to effect an arrest; commissioners and MPD officials debated whether 'displaying' (unholstering without pointing) should be tracked as a use-of-force metric.
A motion from the common council to modify Milwaukee Police Department standard operating procedure 4‑60 (use of force) drew extended discussion at the Fire and Police Commission meeting April 16.
Alderman Peter Bergelis (presenting the common-council file) said the change is intended to restore clarity and accountability by reinstating a requirement that a use‑of‑force report be written when a department member draws or displays a firearm to effect an arrest or seizure. "This SOP change matters," he said, arguing that predictable policy reduces dangerous gray areas.
Assistant Chief Craig Sarno, speaking for the department, said the change had been presented earlier to the commission and that nationally recognized best-practice definitions do not treat drawing or displaying a firearm as a reportable use of force. "The drawing or displaying of a firearm is not considered a use of force metric by nationally recognized... best practices," Sarno said, adding the department already tracks pointing and discharges and includes related narrative information in arrest reports and body‑worn video.
Commissioners questioned the practical effects of restoring the reporting requirement. Some members noted the commission’s 2024 use‑of‑force report, which the department referenced, counted roughly 2,197 incidents and that many incidents (about 58%) involved displaying or pointing a firearm in various combinations; Assistant Chief Sarno confirmed a subset—182 incidents—were categorized as “displaying a firearm only.” Several commissioners suggested alternative approaches, including creating a checkbox or a separate category for ‘‘reported intimidation’’ to capture the public‑safety and pattern‑detection benefits without imposing unnecessary administrative burden.
The item was before the commission as a communication file; commissioners discussed sending a formal recommendation or conveying a consensus view to the public‑safety committee. Commissioners also raised procedural questions tied to Act 12 and the commission’s changing role in policy advice. No final recommendation on adoption was recorded at the meeting; further action was left to the commission’s follow‑up deliberations and the common council’s schedule (the council’s public safety committee was noted as expected to hear the matter April 30).
