►
From YouTube: Reimagining Public Safety 10/25/2021
Description
Reimagining Public Safety 10/25/2021
B
I
am
thank
you
and
apologies
everyone
and
thank
you
for
for
letting
me
go
first
I'll
I'll.
Be
uncharacteristically
brief.
Let
me
thank
all
of
the
committee
members
again
for
the
continued
work.
We
are
this
close,
I'm
putting
my
hands
up
in
a
like,
pretty
close
gesture
to
putting
together
a
set
of
recommendations
for
consideration
from
this
group.
You
know
working
collaboratively
on
a
docs
to
kind
of
summarize
our.
What
we
would
see
is
our
initial
recommendations
and
that
will
open
up
conversation.
B
I
believe
there's
going
to
be
no
problem
having
that
ready
for
the
next
meeting
and
again
special
thanks
to
all
the
group
members
who
continue
to
to
deal
with
me,
hassling
them
and
contribute
in
amazing
ways,
but
I
think
that's
it
I'm
not
sure
who
else
is
on
that
call,
because
I
can't
see
it,
but
if
any
of
the
other
working
group
members
wanted
to
chime
in.
If
I
missed
anything,
please
please
do
so.
A
C
Sorry
to
to
discuss
that
and
either
at
that
meeting,
we're
still
trying
to
figure
out
if
we'll
have
time
for
both
but
we'll
also
have
police
chief
chief
barnes
and
ike
oboe
our
health
director
on
to
talk
about
how
there
those
two
departments
are
currently
collaborating
to
see
if
we
can
strengthen
it
in
any
way
and
and
and
there
may
be
in
an
attempt
to
think
through
what
it
would
look
like
to
merge
the
department.
So
we
are
we're
still
in
the
kitchen
trying
to
check
something
up.
That
makes
sense.
A
A
All
right,
thank
you.
So
the
next
item
on
our
agenda
is
it's
kind
of
exciting.
It
might
be
our
opportunity
to
take
our
first
vote
on
as
a
committee
on
anything
other
than
other
than
minutes
of
past
meetings,
and
so
I
wanted
to
kind
of
speak
on
behalf
of
the
working
group.
That's
been
looking
at
data
and
thinking
about
issues
of
patrol
and
traffic
enforcement,
especially
first
of
all,
you
know.
I
know
that
all
the
different
working
groups
are
engaged
in
these
kind
of
arduous
processes.
A
We
have
made
a
lot
of
data
requests
of
the
department
and
asked
for
a
lot
of
follow-up
clarification
and
there's
just
been
a
tremendous
amount
of
time
that
the
department
has
offered
to
help
us
understand
and
think
through
think
through
things
to
get
to
the
place
that
we've
gotten
today.
I
wanna
by
the
way
shout
out
commander
glenn
is
with
us
today,
because
dc
secluded,
I
know,
is
unavailable
and
just
again
I
want
to
thank
epd's
continued
engagement
on
these
and
these
efforts.
A
If
the
committee
sees
fit
to
vote
and
supported
some
of
this
stuff
today,
then
the
next
step
would
be
to
begin
conversations
with
a
full
city
council,
there's
no
sort
of
procedural
step
between
us
and
the
full
council.
So
it
would
be
simply
a
matter
of
continuing
the
discussions
working
with
our
the
other
six
members
of
city
council
who
are
not
represented
on
this
committee,
continuing
to
get
shortly
input
from
the
community
and
from
the
police
department
and
from
further
clarification
from
this
committee.
A
A
A
A
So
the
three
topics
that
we
wanted
to
make
recommendations
on
today
are
about
non-moving
violation,
traffic
stops,
consent,
searches
and
data
practices.
So
the
first,
the
first
recommendation
is
relatively
straightforward.
The
idea
is
simply
to
end
traffic
stops
whose
primary
purpose
is
neither
a
moving
violation
nor
a
specific
investigation,
so
that
what
that
leaves
is
equipment,
violation,
some
some
something
about
your
vehicle
itself,
that
is
in
violation
of
the
state
law
or
the
city
code.
A
You
know
broken
taillight,
for
instance,
and
then
second
license
or
registration
violations,
and
I
want
to
stress
we're
not
saying
that
we
don't
believe
in
the
enforcement
of
these
of
these
laws
or
or
city
codes.
We're
saying
that
we
don't
believe
that
the
enforcement
requires
a
traffic
stop,
and
so
the
reason
that
we
felt
that
this
was
something
that
would
be
potentially
really
valuable,
is
rooted
in
data
that
I've
I've
shared
in
the
past.
But
I
want
to.
A
A
If
you
look
at
idot's
model
that
they've
built,
they
actually
find
a
much
larger
racial
disparity
in
this
traffic.
Stop
data
a
racial
disparity
of
eight
to
eight
plus
to
one
others
have
shared
with
me
that
they
dispute
that
idot
model
and
one
can
go
into
sort
of
figuring
out
what
the
right
baseline
is.
But
I
think
it's
fair
to
say
that
there's
a
there's,
a
racial
disparity
embedded
in
that
traffic
stop
data.
A
But
then
what
becomes
very
very
very
striking
is,
if
you
look
at
that
racial
disparity
when
you
break
down
not
just
all
traffic
stops,
but
instead
what
about
just
the
moving
violations?
Where
hey
with
the
moving
violations?
People
are
pulled
over
because
they're,
speeding
or
running
lights,
or
what
have
you
there's
a
smaller
racial
disparity?
A
A
So
if
the
of
the
1500
and
64
equipment
violations
that
occurred
in
2019,
only
only
34
of
them
ended
an
arrest
and
of
the
723
license
plate
or
registration
traffic
stops
only
16
ended
in
the
rest.
So
so
that's
that's
the
data
point
that
we
found
relatively
important
in
evaluating
the
appropriateness
of
this
potential
potential
step,
and
the
last
thing
that
I
want
to
say
is
that
they
take
a
very
significant
amount
of
time.
A
So
that's
in
total,
over
340
hours
of
epd
personnel
time
devoted
to
to
these
these
traffic
stops,
and
so
so,
for
those
reasons
together,
the
the
racial
disparity,
the
fact
that
there's
not
an
enormous
number
of
arrests
that
are
resulting
from
them
and
the
the
tremendous
amount
of
time
spent
on
time
that
could
be
saved.
The
the
committee
was
comfortable
making
this
recommendation.
A
So
that's
the
first
item.
That's
that's
the
first
item
that
I
I
wanted
to.
We
wanted
to
talk
with
you
about
the
next
item.
Oh
my
goodness,
I'm
sorry
is
is
here.
This
item
is
a
bit
more
complex
in
terms
of
even
the
nature
of
the
decision
that
we're
asking
you
to
make,
but
we
believe
it's
an
important
item
as
well,
and
so
so
just
to
set
the
background
here.
A
A
If
you
don't
and
then
the
other
idea,
that's
that's
being
that's
being
utilized
in
berkeley,
is
just
to
raise
the
threshold
of
suspicion
in
the
first
place
that
leads
to
searches
occurring.
So,
for
example,
one
thing
that
they
they're
changing
in
berkeley
is
they're,
saying,
listen,
race
and
ethnicity
alone
are
not
reasons
to
search
someone
someone's
race
and
ethnicity.
Matching
matching
someone
who
had
been
witnessed
engaging
in
an
illegal
activity
is
not
reason
to
stop
someone.
A
A
Times
the
overwhelming
majority
are
drugs,
234,
drugs,
45
from
paraphernalia,
27,
alcohol,
eight
weapon
and
one
stolen
property.
So
if
you,
if
you
take
the
view
that
you
know
making
sure
that
we're
doing
what
we
can
to
keep
weapons
off,
the
streets
is
important.
That's
a
vanishingly
small
proportion
of
what's
actually
occurring
here
and
stolen
properties
in
even
smaller
proportions.
A
It
was
difficult
for
us
to
get
our
hands
on
the
data
we
wanted.
It
required
a
pretty
significant
back
end
work
on
our
side.
Again,
you
know
big
shout
out
to
rose
and
sean
and
others
who
devoted
a
lot
of
time
to
that,
and
so
we
thought
it
would
be
really
valuable.
You
know,
epd
under
state
law
every
year
provides
quite
a
lot
of
data
to
idot,
and
that
data
was
in
fact
the
most
useful
single
data
set
that
we
were
able
to
work
with.
It
was
a
really
for
what
was
in
there.
A
It
was
very,
very
user
friendly
and
helpful
to
us.
The
only
challenge
is,
it
was
simply
missing
some
some
data
points
that
we
had
to
in
relatively
complex
ways
reconstruct
using
you
know
a
variety
of
you
know
not
so
straightforward
tools,
and
so
what
we're
requesting
here
is
simply
that
we
we
we
do
better
than
the
floor
set
by
the
state,
and
we
make
sure
that
we
we
yearly.
A
I
think
it's
already
really
positive
the
state
law
that
we
have
on
the
books
that
requires
every
police
department
to
do
a
pretty
significant
amount
of
annual
reporting.
I
think
enhancing.
It
would
be
a
real
benefit
to
the
city
of
evanston.
The
police
department
haven't
said
in
the
community
of
evanston,
but
I
also
think
that
then,
having
a
real
conversation
every
year
as
a
community
when
that
data
comes
out,
is
an
opportunity
that
we
would,
we
would
really
benefit
from.
A
D
F
A
A
F
F
A
D
G
H
H
If
that
time
is
reallocated,
I
think
there
is
a
dollar
value
of
sort
of
essentially
moving
we're,
not
spending
less,
but
that
money
you
know
we
might
be
spending
tens
of
thousands
of
dollars,
perhaps
even
more
than
that
in
ways
that
are
not
actually
making
us
safer
and
so
essentially
wasting
that
money.
So
if
there
are
different
activities
that
will
be
substituted,
that
actually
are
you
know,
there's
whether
they're
doing
outreach
or
you
know
more
responsible
policing
that
will
actually
make
us
healthier,
safer
communities.
H
A
I
They
go
together,
because,
if
you're
treating
them
racially
fair
and
that
little
small
action
that
you
take
in
terms
of
what
you're
looking
at
because
they
got
this
and
take,
for
instance,
the
ordinance,
the
nuisance
ordinance
and
they
go
out
there
and
spend
two
minutes
not
investigating
it.
But
talking
to
the
person
that
made
the
complaint
and
then
sent
in
a
report
in
that
report,
have
a
reaction
to
the
community
and
the
community
is
looking
at
that
that
you're
sending
away
people
that
we
need
in
the
community.
I
A
I
I
very
strongly
agree
that
I
think
it's
a
huge
mistake
to
to
to
pretend
that
there's
a
trade-off
between
equity
and
safety,
I
think
you're
absolutely
right.
They
do
go
hand
in
hand
and
there's
it's
it's
a
it's
a
thing
that
some
people
suggest,
which
I
think
is
simply
not
the
case,
and
I
I
there
may
be
some
people
who
are
more
motivated
by
the
cause
of
equity
and
others
who
are
more
more
motivated
by
the
cause
of
safety.
But
I
think
we
we
all
ought
to
recognize
that.
I
Because
if
you
can
have
the
equity
one
as
being
fair
and
then
the
enforcement
of
ordnance,
that
is
seen
by
the
community
as
being
unfair,
then
you
are
saying:
okay,
the
ordinance
is
unfair
and
we
want
to
do
this
in
an
equitable
way.
Then
we
need
to
be
tackling
the
ordinance
and
changing
it
to
make
it
so
where
it
is
fair
to
the
whole
community.
I
So
we
have
to
sit
down
and
start
looking
at
things
in
that
way,
and
if
we
don't,
we
will
just
wind
up
with
where
we
are
today-
and
that's
in
you
have
this
a
group
over
here
that
you
that
is
saying,
you're
not
fair
to
us.
You
treat
us
unfairly,
it's
racism,
and
that
is
questionable,
and
then
you
have
boardedness
that
you
know
will
kick
us
out
the
community.
I
I
I
J
A
E
Thank
you
miss
esther.
Actually,
mine
is
not
in
response
mine's
a
separate
question,
but
I
do
agree
that
those
are
not
two
separate
entities
or
items
that
we
should
talk
about
separately.
But
my
question
is:
when
we're
looking
at
item
two
and
comparing
a
versus
parts
of
b
and
c,
I'm
curious
what
accountability
looks
like
if
we
go
with,
b
and
c,
because
the
language
around
like
fits
a
description
and
using
race
and
ethnicity.
A
This
would
be.
I
would
guess,
enforced
through
appeals
that
are
made
by
an
individual
to
the
city
that,
if
our,
if
they're
granted,
would
result
in
disciplinary
action
inside
the
department,
you
know
as
opposed
to
being
able
to
bring
a
fourth
amendment
lawsuit
or
something
because
this
is.
This
is
a
protection
that
goes
well
beyond
the
fourth
amendment,
so
a
fourth
minute
lawsuit
wouldn't
wouldn't
be
in
order.
A
So
you
know,
I
think
I
think.
Ultimately,
it
comes
down
to
the
question
of
whether
you
believe
the
city
and
the
police
department
have
the
capacity
to
handle
first
of
all,
to
educate
personnel
properly
about
how
to
change
practice,
and
you
know
consistent
with
this
approach
and
then
second,
to
put
in
place
some
kind
of
appeal
system
that
would
be
taken
seriously.
That
would
work
appropriately
with
proper
discipline.
It's
definitely
it's
definitely.
A
More
complicated,
I
guess
I
would
say
I
think
that
the
trickiest
part
of
the
conversation
is
that
it's
kind
of
complicated
either
way
in
the
sense
that
item
a
only
allows.
Searches
by
warrant
is
super
simple,
but
it
still
doesn't
really
change
the
question
of
what
happens
if
it's
not
followed.
The
enforcement
question
is
still
still
a
live
question
for
item
a
even
though
the
sort
of
where
to
draw
the
line
between
whether
or
not
it's
being
followed
is
less
complicated.
E
A
Well,
I
mean,
I
would
say
I
mean
this
committee
needs
to.
It
doesn't
need
to
do
anything,
but
I
I
I
would,
if
folks
are,
if
folks
like
what
they
see.
I
would
love
for
this
committee
to
consider
taking
a
vote
on
these
items
and
if,
if
so
you've
got
to
pick,
you
can't
do
both,
and
so
I
would
you
know,
just
sort
of
take
direction
from
the
folks
in
the
room
as
to
which
which
approach
you
think
makes
more
sense.
F
F
A
F
Yeah
putting
2a
aside,
I
think,
2c.
We
can
certainly
take
that
up
today.
I
think
that's,
that's
fine,
so
yeah
moving
to
b
and
of
course,
I
suppose,
one
a
and
b
I
mean
can
I
should
I
move
that
as
well.
I
I
move
that
recommendation
as
well,
that
we,
if
that
hasn't
already
been
adopted,
that
we
move
that
we
end
traffic,
stops
for
equipment
violations
and
license
and
registration
violations
so.
A
All
right
so
councilmember
reid,
moves
passage
of
item,
one
which
is
ending
traffic,
stops
for
equipment
violations
and
license
registration
violations,
item
2b,
which
is
requiring
written
consent
for
all
consent,
searches
and
then
item
3,
which
is
updating
our
data
practices
both
around
more
robust
yearly
reporting
and
then
around
also
logging
specific
vehicle
code
violation.
The
traffic
stops
occur.
K
A
I'm
sorry
who
was
that
nathan?
Second,
so
I
I
don't
like
this,
but
this
is
the
rule.
Apparently,
as
it
was
told
to
me,
even
though
I
enthusiastically
view
everybody
as
an
april
participant
here,
I
was
told
that
the
city
staff
are
not
officially
committee
members,
and
so
I
don't
know
that
you're
eligible
to
second
emotion,
nathan
got
it
got
one.
Second,
sorry.
K
C
A
I
I
Have
the
option
to
talk
to
their
lawyer
to
say:
hey?
Can
we
stop
this
search?
I
don't
know
what
they're
searching
for
or
why
they
are
at
my
house,
no
notice
or
nothing
have
been
given
to
me
so
not
having
the
police
to
best
show
up
at
someone's
house
and
just
give
them
a
warrant,
or
are
they
showing
up
and
telling
that
person
and
giving
that
person
enough
information
for
them
to
understand
why
they
are
there?
Not
just
because
you
have
that
piece
of
paper
signed
by
the
judge,
but
why
are
you.
F
In
this
instance
we're
we're
discussing
traffic
stops.
I
do
not
believe
this
would
change
any
policy
regarding,
although
that
is
something
we
certainly
need
to.
You
know.
I
think
I
put
a
referral
in
recently
about
no
knock
warrants,
and
you
know
the
internet
louis
stuff
that
happened
in
chicago
and
other
places,
but
this
is
specifically
focused
on
traffic
stops
and.
A
To
be
and
additionally
right
and
therefore
these
are
searches
that
occur
without
a
warrant
and
if
you're,
if
you're,
searched
without
a
warrant,
that's
only
because
you've,
you've,
given
your
consent
and
and
the
issue
this
is
trying
to
deal
with,
is
making
sure
people
really
know
their
rights.
They
give
their
consent
voluntarily.
They're
they're
informed
of
the
fact
that
they're
not
obligated
to
give
their
consent
and
they
sign
a
piece
of
paper
indicating
they're,
okay
with
the
search,
and
so
that's
that's
the
situation.
That's
that's
that
this
applies
to.
I
F
I
I
will
just
note,
unfortunately,
I
I
don't
think
for
all
residents.
There's
no
consequences
today
of
refusing
a
search,
and
so
I
actually
do
wonder.
Would
this
prohibit
you
know
you,
you
don't
give
consent
to
a
search,
and
you
know
written
consent.
Could
an
officer
still
call
out
a
dog,
for
example,
and
you
know
try
to
have
the
car
sniff
searched
and
then
that
gives
them
or
would
that
completely
eliminate
that
as
a
with
this
policy.
I
It
does
because
you
remember
the
supreme
court
case
as
if
that
person
says
I
don't
give
a
consent
to
certain.
I,
a
police
officer
are
a
sniffing
doll.
Then
he's
not
giving
his
consent
to
you
to
do
that
and
you're
not
supposed
to
do
the
search.
But
if
you
go
ahead
and
do
the
search
after
he
tells
you
no
to
both
of
them,
then
it
doesn't
stand
up
in
court.
I
A
F
A
warrant
for-
and
I
guess,
there's
eight
I'm
I'm
coming
around
to
you
know
I
do
like
the
paper
trail
and
unless
this
is,
you
know,
creates
a
policy
that
can
you
know
if,
if
consent,
I
think
we'd
have
to
just
you
know,
make
sure
that
this
is
clear,
that
if
written
consent
isn't
given
the
next
step
is
the
only
option
that
you
have
you're
not
going
to
call
out
a
dog
you're
not
going
to
do.
Take
some
other
step
you
at
that
point.
A
G
I
I
just
read
the
comment
that
it
really
can
reduce
consent,
searches
or
reduce
people
consenting,
but
I'm
not
convinced
at
all
that
a
police
officer
glowering
at
me
will
make
me
feel
great
about
not
consenting
to
something
so
so
that
factor
of
what
leads
up
to
that,
I
don't
think
is
entirely
mitigated
by
writing
all
over
a
piece
of
paper
that
you
don't
have
to
do
it.
I
think
that
relationship
is
is
fraught,
so
I'm
from
a
from
a
procedural
standpoint.
G
It
feels
to
me
like
we
should
be
discussing
the
like.
What
what
do
we
package
together
is
everybody
down
with
stopping
the
equipment
violation
thing
and-
and
we
can
recommend
that
without
hesitation,
but
there
needs
to
be
more
discussion
on
a
for,
b
and
c.
How
does
that
get
packaged
into
a
coh?
You
know
to
a
into
a
full
recommendation.
A
The
answer
is
very
simple:
you
can
we
can
do
whatever
we
want
to
do
so.
Councilmember
reed
made
a
motion.
That
motion
is
in
front
of
us.
That
motion
is
totally
appropriate,
but
if
folks
aren't
totally
comfortable,
it's
really
important
to
vote
on
what
what
folks
actually
want
to
vote
on?
Not
not
just
the
motion
that
happened
to
get
made.
I'm
sure
councilmember
would
be
happy
to
I
would
get.
A
A
K
I
just
wanted
to
to
say
that
I
I
definitely
support
one
and
three
but
share
some
of
the
views
already
expressed
about
concerns
on
on
consent
searches.
I
would,
I
think
I
personally
would
favor
prohibiting
consent,
searches
all
together
to
to
be
very
clear
about
that,
and
either
supporting
2a
or
discussing
further
2c.
A
Great,
thank
you.
So
it's
after
five
there's
two
non-committee
members
who've
raised
their
hands.
I
want
to
give
them
a
chance
to
speak,
but
I
also
want
to
make
sure
that
we,
if
folks,
want
to
vote
on
something
which
I
think
folks
do.
I
want
to
make
sure
that
we
do
that
before
people
are
out
of
time,
so
betsy
wilson
is.
F
J
Thank
you,
mayor
bis,
I'll,
try
to
be
fast.
I
think
one
is
very
exciting.
It
doesn't
go
far
enough,
but
I
think
it's
a
really
fantastic
first
step
and
I
think
number
three
is
also
an
important
measure.
I
share
a
lot
of
the
concerns
about
consent,
searches
and
just
wanted
to
add
my
two
cents.
As
a
defense
attorney,
we
have
seen
in
every
aspect
of
police
investigation
and
criminal
law.
J
Those
of
us
who
have
spent
some
time
in
the
criminal
world
know
that
consent
when
it's
elicited
by
an
armed
police
officer
from
a
person
in
an
over-policed
community.
That
consent
is
almost
never
valid
legally,
it
might
be
valid,
but
it's
not
the
kind
of
consent
that
we
as
laypeople
would
consider
freely.
J
C
C
In
fact,
as
some
of
the
members
you
know
just
described,
it
could
lead
to.
You
know
further
attempts
to
try
to
gain
access
to
the
vehicle
in
other
ways.
So
yeah.
I
think
my
my
support
right
now
is
certainly
with
a
unless
I
hear
anything
different
and
I
know
councilman
reid
said
he
didn't
entertain
an
amendment
to
the
motion.
A
D
L
A
L
A
F
Yeah
yeah.
Thank
you,
sarah
actually
for
asking
that,
because
I
that
I
think
that's
why
my
you
know
kind
of
red
flag
went
up.
It
seemed
almost
extreme
to
eliminate
all
surges
without
without
a
warrant.
So
with
that
I
would
I
will
draw
my
motion
and
then
I'll
move
to
approve
1,
a
and
b
2
a
and
then
3
a
b,
and
then
we
did
not
yeah
we're
leaving
off
four
and
five
at
this
point.
A
K
A
Okay,
sorry,
thank
you.
Okay,
I'm
gonna
stop
the
screen
share,
so
I
can
see
everybody
now.
Is
there
any
discussion
on
the
current
motion,
which
is
as
the
previous
one
passage
of
one
and
three
but
as
for
item
two,
it's
the
the
kind
of
precisely
correctly
written
version
of
one
a
of
two
a,
which
is
to
say
the
prohibition
of
consent,
searches
in
any
further
discussion
about
about
that
motion
or
any
questions
about
what
exactly
was
moved.