The Minneapolis City Council unanimously approved an agreement with the Minnesota Department of Human Rights (MDHR) to reform policing on Friday.

The agreement comes nearly three years after former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin killed George Floyd by kneeling on his neck for 9 ½ minutes. Chauvin was convicted for the murder of Floyd in April 2021.

In April 2022, the MDHR published an investigation into the city of Minneapolis and the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD). The investigation found higher rates of force against Black individuals, the use of covert social media to target Black leaders and Black organizations, racist language from some MPD officers and aggressive training that led to uses of inappropriate levels of force.

After the MDHR investigation was issued, city leaders agreed to negotiate a settlement with the state agency. The state settlement still requires court approval from a Hennepin County judge.

The agreement is court-enforceable and includes numerous policies intended to reform policing, such as requirements for body worn cameras, collection of demographic data for stops and searches, mental health support for officers and non-discriminatory policing.

Officers will also no longer be able to conduct a stop-and-frisk based on smelling marijuana or pull over a driver solely because of mechanical issues, such as a broken tail light. They will also have a duty to intervene if they see another officer breaking the rules.

The agreement will require a review and update of MPD policies. The plan states this will be conducted through engagement  from officers and supervisors and with the broader community.

The United States Department of Justice is still conducting its investigation, which they launched April 2021, into whether MPD officers engaged in a pattern of discrimination. The findings of that investigation could lead to a separate agreement with the city, known as a consent decree.

New police precinct alongside police reform

On Wednesday, just two days before the Council approved the policing reform agreement, the city announced two potential sites for a new MPD 3rd Precinct.

Floyd’s murder caused protests and riots to erupt in the city in 2020. During one riot, the 3rd Precinct was burnt down.

The city is holding listening sessions to determine where the new site of the 3rd Precinct should be. The first listening session is scheduled for April 11. Officers from the 3rd Precinct have been working out of a downtown location since May 2020, according to reporting from MPR.

Fairview Health Services issued a public apology statement on July 25 for an alleged racial profiling incident of a Black investigator from the Minnesota attorney general’s office that occurred in April 2021 at Fairview’s Cedar-Riverside location.

Kayseh Magan is an investigator for the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the attorney general’s office. Magan’s attorney served a complaint on Fairview on June 29, 2021. and alleged he was unlawfully discriminated against based on his race, skin color and national origin, assault, battery and falsely arrested. Magan received a public apology from Fairview over a year after the incident occurred.

Complaint against Fairview

On April 23, 2021, Magan was instructed by his boss to serve a legal document to the Fairview corporate office located in Cedar-Riverside. When Magan arrived, he was wearing a black jacket and a polo that was embroidered with an emblem that read: “Medicaid Fraud Control Unit.” Magan also had his badge with him, which was issued by the attorney general’s office, according to the complaint.

He then introduced himself to the security guard and the receptionist at the front desk, displayed his badge and notified both of them of his reason for coming to the hospital. While waiting, he witnessed a shift change between the security guards and introduced himself to the new guard while in the lobby.

Both the receptionist and the security guard attempted to reach Fairview’s legal department but did not have any luck. Magan was then provided with a phone number to arrange service of the legal document but did not receive an answer when he called.

About 15 minutes later, Magan left the building and went to his car to call his supervisors. His supervisors instructed him to return to the building and leave the documents in a sealed envelope with reception.

Magan reentered the building about five minutes later and dropped the envelope off, noticing the same security and reception staff were there before he initially left the building. The receptionist said she could not accept the envelope and Magan replied that Fairview had been served. He then left the building and began walking toward his vehicle, according to the complaint.

As Magan was walking to his car, he noticed the security guard that was in the lobby following him out to his car and holding the envelope he had left. He was then surrounded by two additional security officers and assumed he was being detained.

Magan informed the officers he was there on behalf of the attorney general’s office and was serving a legal document. One of the security officers then ripped Magan’s identification badge from his waist and demanded to see the emblem on his shirt. The officer then said he was going to file an order of trespassing against Magan, the complaint alleged.

The security officer gave Magan his badge back and Magan began walking to his car, assuming he was free to go. As he entered his car, he noticed one of the officers was still following him and writing down his license plate number as he drove away.

In the complaint, Magan accused Fairview of discrimination and hostile accommodations, assault against all the parties involved, battery against the security officer that ripped of his badge and false arrest against all parties involved.

Magan was seeking $50,000, punitive and compensatory damages, attorney fees and any further relief the court deemed necessary due to this incident and the emotional trauma, distress and humiliation this incident caused, according to the complaint.

Magan did not wish to comment on if a settlement was reached or if he was given any financial compensation from Fairview but said in an email to the Minnesota Daily he considered the matter to be resolved and would not file the unfiled lawsuit in court.

Fairview’s Review of the incident

On April 29, 2021, Aimee Jordan, a spokesperson for Fairview, told the StarTribune the incident resulted from a miscommunication when Magan dropped off the document.

Jordan said in a statement to the StarTribune that Fairview would be conducting a “thorough review” of the incident and any inappropriate response from their security team would be addressed. The findings from the review have not been made public.

“Fairview should release the results of this investigation to the public as well as what actions were taken against the security guards who were involved in this incident,” Magan said in an email to the Minnesota Daily.

Public Apology

On July 25, Paul Onufer, the vice president and executive of system operations, issued a public apology statement to Magan on behalf of Fairview, over a year after the incident occurred. The apology, which was shared with the Minnesota Daily, acknowledged Magan was on their campus to serve legal documents as an investigator for the attorney general’s office.

The apology also acknowledged Magan was not trespassing on Fairview property and is not prohibited from returning to the campus.

“In addition, also on behalf of Fairview, I would like to apologize for how you were treated during the April 23 visit,” the apology stated. “Fairview strives to be a welcoming place for all visitors, patients and employees. It is never our intention to make anyone who is visiting for legitimate reasons and behaving appropriately feel unwelcome or unsafe.”

Fairview did not wish to comment further on the incident.

In an email to the Minnesota Daily, Magan said he wanted Fairview to acknowledge and apologize for the actions of their security guards.

“I did not want this incident to be swept under the rug,” Magan said. “I am disappointed that it took a lawsuit and more than a year to get this apology letter.”

Correction: A previous version of this article misstated what Magan’s attorney did on June 29, 2021. Magan’s attorney served a complaint on Fairview on June 29, 2021. 

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey presented a plan for government restructure that would include an Office of Community Safety on March 22. On April 26, the Minneapolis City Council voted against a directive for a Public Safety Department charter amendment.

The Office of Community Safety, which was outlined on March 22, would include emergency and non-emergency services, such as the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD), Minneapolis Fire Department (MFD), the Office of Emergency Management and other agencies in an effort to allow different services within the department to communicate and provide a clearer line of command for different city departments.

In an email to the Minnesota Daily, Tara Niebeling, communications director for the Office of the Mayor, said the Office of Community Safety would be a part of the government restructure that was approved by voters in November 2021.

“The mayor has proposed a government structure that integrates public safety departments to ensure a more collaborative and effective public safety response,” Niebeling said in the email. “This proposed structure is in alignment with Question 1 and will help the entire city enterprise be more efficient, effective and equitable.”

While a date has not been set for when the Office of Community Safety would start, it will be a part of the government restructuring that is taking place over the next year. The office will be overseen by a chief safety officer, according to Frey’s presentation at the Committee of the Whole meeting on April 26.

The government structure implementation group will be tasked with reviewing what resources will be needed to implement the new office. City councilors will be working with the mayor and different department heads to establish the new office, said Ward 1 Council Member Elliott Payne.

City Council rejects Public Safety Department
Although Minneapolis citizens voted against Question 2, which would have created a Department of Public Safety, Payne said he wanted to go through a different route by proposing a charter amendment to create a Public Safety Department.

Council members are allowed to propose charter amendments at any time and they must pass with a unanimous vote by council and the mayor.

The proposed Public Safety Department would have been similar to the Office of Community Safety as it would consolidate various agencies, such as MFD and the Office of Emergency Management, into one department.

On April 26, the Committee of the Whole voted against a directive to further research the Public Safety Department. This effectively killed the Public Safety Department proposal, Ward 2 Council Member Robin Wonsley Worlobah said. The department did not get a full vote in a City Council meeting.

Wonsley Worlobah said she wanted city staff to research Payne’s proposal to give council members more time and information to make a decision about the department.

“We wanted to have our department implementation process actually be guided by research and a plan,” Wonsley Worlobah said. “It literally gave us the opportunity to get additional information about what this new Department of Public Safety could look like.”

In February, after MPD officer Mark Hanneman killed Amir Locke, Payne announced that he would be bringing forward an ordinance that would create a Public Safety Department. When proposed, the department was going to combine different emergency and non-emergency services.

“My proposal was really about consolidating the alternatives under one department, and then exploring a way of integrating those alternatives into the police department or alongside the police department,” Payne said.

After Minneapolis police officer Mark Hanneman killed Amir Locke Feb. 2, the Attorney General’s Office and Hennepin County Attorney’s Office released a report on the event, including why Hanneman was not criminally charged. The report also includes firsthand accounts from officers and witnesses.

The report was published on April 6, the same day Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman announced that Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) officer Mark Hanneman would not face criminal charges for killing Locke.

On Feb. 2, just before 7 a.m., Hanneman shot and killed Locke at Bolero Flats apartments in Minneapolis. Officers entered the apartment using a no-knock warrant, meaning that they did not have to announce their presence before crossing the threshold. Hanneman shot and killed Locke less than 10 seconds after police entered the apartment.

Hanneman was put on paid administrative leave until Feb. 28 and is now back on duty, but no longer serves on SWAT, according to the Star Tribune.

Since Hanneman killed Locke, activists have pushed for a ban on no-knock warrants. On April 8, Mayor Jacob Frey put limits on no-knock warrants in Minneapolis.

The joint report details background information, pre-warrant briefing and planning, the execution of the warrant and MPD policies and procedures. It also explains why Hanneman was not charged with homicide. The report uses findings from the investigation into Locke’s killing by the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), the AGO and the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office.

Background information and pre warrant planning
On Jan. 10, St. Paul police began investigating a homicide involving a fire weapon. The investigators linked suspects to Bolero Flats apartments in Minneapolis.

St. Paul police obtained a knock-and-announce warrant for apartment 701 where Locke was staying. A knock-and-announce warrant means that officers must knock loudly and declare their presence before entering the threshold. Tatyana Henderson was living at apartment 701 with Marlon Speed, a suspect named on the warrant.

After obtaining the warrants, St. Paul investigators reached out to MPD Sgt. John Sysaath to request assistance from MPD SWAT teams to execute the warrants. After consulting with MPD SWAT Lt. Thomas Campbell, Sysaath told St. Paul investigators that MPD SWAT would only assist with no-knock warrants.

Execution of the warrants
The joint report includes first-hand accounts from people who were present at the apartment, which includes officers and two residents. Interviews with Henderson and Speed were conducted by the BCA during their investigation into the homicide.

Henderson said she was sleeping in the bedroom with Speed when the officers entered the apartment. She said she was confused and thought people were breaking in. Speed said he woke up when the police entered. He said he then heard gunshots and then the police announce themselves, in that order.

Speed and Henderson were found in the bedroom of the apartment during the execution of the warrant.

Sysaath was the first officer to enter the apartment and can be heard yelling “Police,” in body camera footage. Sysaath submitted a written statement for the joint report that said he saw Locke when he entered the apartment.

When Locke sat up, Sysaath said he noticed a tan colored firearm in his hands pointed in the direction of Hanneman, who was standing about three feet in front of the gun. Sysaath said he believed Locke was going to shoot at Hanneman or the officers, according to the report.

Hanneman also submitted a written statement. He wrote he was the third officer to enter apartment 701 and once inside, he saw a blanket rising and falling from the couch in the apartment, which he indicated meant a person was on the couch.

As Hanneman moved to the couch, he wrote that another SWAT officer kicked the couch. Hanneman then saw Locke begin to rise with a handgun that he said was pointed at him.

“I was convinced that the individual was going to fire their handgun and that I would suffer great bodily harm or death,” Hanneman wrote in his statement. “I felt in this moment that if I did not use deadly force myself, I would likely be killed. There was no opportunity for me to reposition myself or retreat. There was no way for me to de-escalate this situation.”

Hanneman wrote that he fired his gun three times at Locke, then jumped on his back to restrain Locke.

The footage on Hanneman’s body camera cuts off shortly after Hanneman was on top of Locke, and Hanneman said he believes the camera deactivated at some point during the struggle. After Hanneman shot and killed Locke, another officer escorted Hanneman out of the apartment, according to the report.

MPD Policies
MPD policies allow for use of force when necessary which aligns with the Minnesota state statute for use of deadly force. The policy states that deadly force can be used only when lives are at risk and other tactics for de-escalation have been considered and would be unsuccessful.

David Schultz is a law professor at the University of Minnesota. Schultz said it would be difficult to overcome the burden of proof for a homicide charge in this case because of the rules surrounding use of deadly force.

“I think what the Attorney General and Freeman were thinking was on one level it doesn’t matter if the person was a suspect,” Schultz said. “An officer at that point had no idea whether or not Locke was going to pull the gun out on them, or whether he was perhaps a potential co-conspirator or co-defendant. All this would be difficult for the prosecution to be able to make their case.”

Since then, various Minneapolis public officials and activists started calling for an end to no-knock warrants. On April 8, Minneapolis mayor, Jacob Frey, enacted a new policy that prohibits the use of no-knock warrants, except for in exigent circumstances.

Abigail Cerra was the Chair of the Police Conduct Oversight Commission in Minneapolis, but recently resigned from her position. Cerra said Locke’s death highlights the danger of no-knock warrants for civilians and officers.

“If somebody had firearms and was known to use them to commit murder and harm people, charging in on somebody unannounced in the middle of a night when everyone’s asleep just presents a risk all the way around,” Cerra said.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey issued a new policy Tuesday that will go into effect Friday and will change the Minneapolis Police Department’s (MPD) search warrants requiring officers to knock and announce their presence before entering.

A press release from the office of the mayor said the new policy would add layers of accountability. However, some local activists do not think MPD will become more accountable.

When officers are executing search warrants they will be required to knock and announce their presence, then wait to enter. During the day, officers will be required to wait 20 seconds before entering, and at night they will be required to wait 30 seconds. In the past, no knock warrants could be used if approved by a judge, meaning officers could enter before announcing their presence.

According to the proposal, officers still can enter without knocking and announcing themselves if exigent circumstances arise that would require the officer to immediately enter. Exigent circumstances include preventing imminent harm or danger, preventing the escape of a suspect or when the suspect is being pursued by officers.

Michelle Gross, president of Communities United Against Police Brutality, said she talked to Frey about this policy and wanted to make sure that people had enough time to get to the door before the police entered, and suggested police officers wait at least 30 seconds, no matter the time of day.

Under the new policy, officers will be prohibited from executing no knock warrants, except under exigent circumstances. The policy was enacted after Mark Hanneman shot and killed Amir Locke during the execution of a no knock search warrant that Locke was not named in.

Hanneman was placed on a leave of absence after he shot and killed Locke, but has returned to his position. On Wednesday, Attorney General Keith Ellison and Hennepin County attorney Michael Freeman announced that Hanneman would not face criminal charges.

Gross said she was disappointed that the new policy did not ban no knock warrants completely, and thought giving MPD the ability to execute no knock warrants under exigent circumstances would provide a loophole for these warrants to stay.

“I don’t feel like they have defined it well enough in the policy,” Gross said. “No knock warrants are an antiquated practice that really have very little reason to exist.”

Frey worked alongside the Interim Director of the Minneapolis Civil Rights Department, Alberder Gillespie, MPD leadership, constituent groups and Campaign Zero, an organization focused on reducing police violence, to create the new policy.

“This policy is among the most forward-looking and extensive in the nation and will help keep both our residents and officers safe,” Frey said in a press release.

Frey campaigned to ban no knock warrants, and reformed them in November 2020, but stated that the reform that restricted the use of no knock warrants was not a ban, according to the Minnesota Reformer. When Locke was killed by an MPD officer, many activists pointed to this and began calling for a ban on these warrants. Shortly after Hanneman killed Locke on Feb. 2, Frey announced a moratorium on no knock warrants.

Jae Yates from Twin Cities Coalition Justice For Jamar said they were disappointed with the new policy because it did not have concrete language that would ban these warrants outright.

“I think that Mayor Frey wants constituents to feel like he has the police under control, but he doesn’t, there’s no evidence to suggest that he is either able or interested in exercising his executive control over [MPD],” Yates said. “It’s really important that we start kind of exposing this cycle of announcing a big, supposedly transformational action and then not actually doing anything to stop the police from not following the law.”

Toshira Garraway is the founder of Families Supporting Families against Police Violence. Garraway said while the policy can be viewed as a step forward, change should start with state legislators addressing the problem and creating solutions, such as new laws.

“This is a state of Minnesota problem,” Garraway said. “Until we understand that this is a statewide problem and more than a city of Minneapolis problem, that’s where we’re gonna get stuck.”

No criminal charges will be filed against Minneapolis Police Officer Mark Hanneman who shot and killed Amir Locke in February.

Hennepin County Attorney Michael Freeman and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced on Wednesday that Hanneman would not face criminal charges due to “insufficient admissible evidence.” According to MPD Public Information Officer Garrett Parten, Hanneman is back on duty after a leave of absence.

The announcement comes after the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) completed an investigation into Locke’s death and submitted their findings to the Attorney General’s Office and Hennepin County Attorney’s Office March 14.

In a joint report released Wednesday by the Hennepin County Attorney’s Office and the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, Freeman and Ellison said the evidence could not disprove any element of authorized use of deadly force beyond a reasonable doubt. The report added that the state could not file charges against Hanneman due to insufficient evidence.

“To file a criminal charge against any of the police officers, and specifically against Officer Hanneman, the State must possess sufficient admissible evidence to prove every element of the criminal offense and disprove at least one element of any available affirmative defense beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a high burden, and it is one which is not met here,” the report said.

Hanneman shot and killed Locke nine seconds after MPD opened the door of an apartment he was lying in on Feb. 2. Officers entered Bolero Flats apartment buildings using a no knock warrant, and body camera footage shows Locke lying on a couch under a blanket when the officers entered the apartment. He was holding a handgun moments before he was shot by Hanneman. Locke was not named in the warrant.

In the joint report published by Ellison and Freeman, both offices said they support the current review and rethinking of policies surrounding no knock warrants. The report also said they recognized that Locke’s death was a tragedy, but Minnesota state statutes require the state to use the perspective of the officer in that situation without the benefit of hindsight.

“Amir Locke’s death is an immense tragedy. We recognize the sadness, pain, and anger felt by Mr. Locke’s family, friends, and the community over his loss,” the report read. “We recognize that this decision may seem unfair, especially given the nature of the entry and the inability to know what Mr. Locke intended to do.”

This is a breaking news report. More information will be added as it becomes available.

On March 15, Minneapolis’s Ethical Practice Board dismissed all ethical complaints alleged against Mayor Jacob Frey leaving residents who filed them confused.

The Ethical Practices Board authorized Susan Trammell, the ethics officer, to dismiss further complaints against Frey that concern the same issues, according to an email shared with the Minnesota Daily.

“Thus no future complaints about the Amir Locke no knock warrant situation will come before the Board,” Trammell said in an email to Frey that was later shared with the Minnesota Daily.

A group of Minneapolis residents gathered at Minneapolis City Hall and filed the complaints against Frey on Feb. 11 in response to the killing of Amir Locke by a Minneapolis police officer. Over 1,200 complaints were filed against the mayor. The complaints alleged that the mayor misused funds and failed to further the best interests of the city.

The complaints were dismissed without an investigation, and the group that brought the complaints against the mayor is calling for accountability and transparency.

When asked why the complaints were dismissed, city of Minneapolis Media Relations Coordinator Sarah McKenzie cited bylaw 7.6 written in the rules of procedure for the Ethical Practices Board. It states the ethics officer is allowed to dismiss multiple similar complaints or complaints that are not worthy of an investigation. Trammell did not give additional information to the Daily or to people who filed the complaints.

Elianna Lippold-Johnson is the spokesperson for The Residents Complaint, the group of residents that filed the complaints against the mayor.

She said the group wanted to gain clarity through an investigation, but she said she thinks that the board’s dismissal of the complaints and the mayor’s response demonstrates Minneapolis administration’s dismissive attitude toward residents. Lippold-Johnson also said she thinks that the ethics board is shielding the mayor from accountability.

“We will continue to work to hold the mayor accountable,” Lippold-Johnson said. “We really think that until we have accountability, the mistrust between Minneapolis residents and the city is just going to continue to grow.”

In response to the complaints being dismissed, Frey said in a press release that the board’s decision was welcomed but unsurprising.

“This stunt was always more about politics than it was about ethics, as was shown in this decision,” Frey said in a press release. “Fixing the real shortcomings in our public safety system is not advanced by performative measures.”

When complaints are filed, the ethics officer looks into them and determines whether or not to dismiss the claims. If the officer dismisses them, the board will either agree with the officer and dismiss the claims or disagree and begin an investigation. Since the board and the ethics officer decided to dismiss the claims, Frey’s complaints will not be investigated.

Lippold-Johnson said the group is now contacting representatives at the state and city level to get accountability.

“[We are] asking where we are supposed to get accountability. Right now we’re not getting a lot of answers,” Lippold-Johnson said.

On March 10, the Minneapolis City Council approved contracts for four local organizations to work alongside the Minneapolis Fire Department (MFD) to create “safe stations” where people suffering from addiction disorders can go to seek help.

Over the next three years, around $1.2 million will be distributed among the four organizations, Twin Cities Recovery Project, Cordata, Koranda O’tool Paramedics Incorporated (KOPI) and YourPath, to develop safe stations at fire stations in high risk areas of the city. The safe stations will be places that people who are suffering from substance use disorder and opioid use disorder can go to find resources. Locations and opening dates for the safe stations have not been announced.

The goal of the project is to reduce the number of substance use disorder and opioid use disorder medical incidents, traumas and deaths, said Melanie Rucker, the press information officer for MFD, in an email to the Minnesota Daily.

Saida Abdi is an assistant professor at the University of Minnesota and has researched youth opioid use in the East African communities in Minneapolis. Abdi said the safe stations would be a great opportunity for those struggling with opioid use disorder to get the help they need.

“Often youth in our communities that are experiencing addiction, they may not have any support, they may be ostracized, they may not be able to go into any institutions,” Abdi said. “That engagement is what opens the doors for services, what opens the doors for recovery.”

When the pandemic began, Minnesota saw an increase in opioid related deaths, jumping almost 60% from 2019 to 2020.

When a person goes to a safe station, a firefighter will perform an assessment of the individual to determine what kind of care is necessary for them. If immediate medical attention is necessary, a firefighter will start lifesaving action and call for an ambulance to bring the individual to a hospital. If someone is not actively in danger, a firefighter will contact Twin Cities Recovery Project and they will send out a peer recovery coach or an outreach expert.

MFD is using a self-referral as well as an active outreach approach. A self-referral approach means that those who want help can seek it out at the safe stations, while an active outreach approach extends resources to those who are suffering from addiction disorders or those who have trauma or grief related to substance use disorders.

“Minneapolis Fire Department’s provision of safe stations, continual professional community services, proactive commitment prevention and community engagement will help support the people in high risk communities of Minneapolis and reduce their unmet needs,” Rucker said.

Firefighters will work to connect those suffering from addiction disorders to outreach services, such as peer recovery coaches, education material and access to medical services. The safe stations will be staffed full-time by firefighters while employees from the four organizations will visit when necessary, Rucker said.

This project is being funded by an annual $400,000 grant given to MFD by the Bureau of Justice. MFD will be using the money to collaborate with the four organizations for peer outreach and recovery.

Karissa Mariee, the Twin Cities Recovery Project chief operations officer, said the money granted to the organization will be used to implement peer recovery programs and specialists at the safe stations and give access to necessary resources.

“Basically any resource that a person would be in need of is what we try to connect them to,” Mairee said. “We are here to serve the people that are in need, and help people get into recovery. We meet them at any stage that they are at and work with them.”

On March 7, the After-Action review was published, which analyzed the city of Minneapolis’ response to the protests following the murder of George Floyd in 2020. The report found inconsistencies and a lack of communication between Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) and the city government during the protests following Floyd’s murder.

The report analyzed how city departments like the mayor’s office, MPD and Minneapolis Fire Department (MFD) responded to the protests calling for police accountability following the murder of Floyd. It highlighted city departments’ failure to follow the emergency operations plan and lack of communication. It also provided recommendations for the city to utilize in the future.

The city contracted Hillard Heintze, a security risk management firm, to conduct the report.

Over 2,400 documents, such as training records and video and audio files related to the protests, were reviewed. The firm conducted interviews with about 90 city employees and community members.

In an email to the Minnesota Daily, MPD spokesperson Garrett Parton said the department read the report and is developing a strategy for public safety events. He added that MPD is working with the Minneapolis Office of Emergency Management and MFD to create and update policies.

“The MPD has established a workgroup within the command staff to aggressively develop and implement new policies and protocols to ensure we achieve and maintain the highest level of readiness when responding to both small and large public safety incidents,” Parton wrote.

Findings about the city’s response
According to the report, the city failed to use its emergency operations plan effectively. The report said the emergency operations plan was comprehensive and well-written, but the Mayor’s Office did not implement the plan correctly and the Office of Emergency Management did not effectively engage coordinating with other departments. The Office of Emergency Management is in charge of preparing, preventing and responding to emergencies.

Protests and large events, such as the Superbowl and NCAA Final Four, were held in Minneapolis in years prior to Floyd’s murder, so the city had training with large scale law enforcement, the report said.

The city could have used this to guide the response, the report said. Despite the city’s experience dealing with protests and rallies, the report said they found a “lack of clear leadership and responsibilities.”

The city did not issue reports to employees or Minneapolis citizens about what was going on with the protests. It was not until the state activated the Multi-Agency Command Center, which includes the Minnesota National Guard, Minnesota Department of Public Safety, MPD and UMPD, that daily briefings about the situation were given to the community and city officials.

In an email to the Minnesota Daily, Mayor Jacob Frey said the city is taking the findings into account.

“I’ve already directed staff to implement a plan for improving our emergency response processes across the enterprise,” Frey said. “Trainings are underway, new structures are being put in place and we are in routine contact with multi-jurisdictional partners to enhance communications and operational preparedness.”

Findings about MPD’s response
The report also said MPD did not use the emergency plan effectively, which resulted in communication issues and an unprepared response to the protests. MPD did not develop a formal crisis response plan when protests began and did not engage in formal organizational efforts.

The report stated that MPD leadership said their response developed “organically” and when the department met on May 27, shortly after the protests began, a formal response or plan to handle the protests was not discussed or clarified. For example, MPD did not have a plan for mass arrests or for the timely processing of individuals who were arrested during protests.

MPD officers in the field during the protests had limited amount of communication and guidance from their superiors, according to the report. There was little to no overview of the situation for officers and officer behavior standards were unclear, resulting in an inconsistent police response, the report said.

Recommendations

The report recommended that Minneapolis officials talk to citizens about the response to the protests and the trauma that it caused. Community members were distressed by the city’s lack of planning and MPD’s response to the protests, according to the findings. Some felt worried about the degrading relationship between the community and the police, it said.

It also recommended that MPD should create open communication with the community in advance of its response.

The report highlighted that transparency with city employees, officials, departments and the community would be essential to a guided response in the case of any future protests.

Ward 2 Council member Robin Wonsley Worlobah said she would be taking the recommendations from the report and using them as guidance.

“The After-Action report shows that there were no structural barriers[in the city government],” Wonsley Worlobah said. “The government structure of that time did not prevent the mayor from being able to follow existing emergency protocols and plans.”

Since the “strong mayor” government style went into effect in December, Minneapolis officials have been working out the details within the new government form, such as how the mayor, administration and Minneapolis City Council will interact and what their specific roles will be.

In November, Minneapolis residents voted to amend the city charter, changing the role of the mayor from a “weak mayor” to executive of the city, also shifting the City Council to operate more as a legislative body. The City Council will be in charge of creating policies and enacting laws for Minneapolis residents and has less administrative control over the city.

Among city staff, such as some council members, there is a lack of clarity on how the city should be operating. This creates confusion on topics such as who residents should go to to report problems and connections between City Council and city administration.

On Feb. 10, City Council approved a motion for the city clerk and city coordinator to create an outline about the new government structure.

Casey Carl, Minneapolis city clerk, said he and the city coordinator are creating the outline to define the separation of powers between the mayor and City Council and how different parts of the city work together. Once an outline is drawn up, it will take several months for the city to fully integrate into the new system.

The new government structure also defines the mayor as the chief spokesperson for the city, meaning the mayor is now accountable for the performance of the city. The council will monitor and evaluate the performance of the city.

Carl said the council will continue to play the role of the legislative body and have responsibilities such as setting up policies that will determine how the city is run and enacting laws for the city.

“For the community, voters, constituents and residents, the biggest change is where accountability stops, and that’s with the mayor,” Carl said. “It provides a very clear line of accountability between the voters and the mayor, and then from the mayor’s to the department.”

One area that needs to be determined is formal points of communication between the mayor and Council, according to a committee presentation on Feb 8.

Ward 6 Council Member Jamal Osman said he is confused about the role of City Council as a legislative body. For example, since the mayor now represents Minneapolis, city officials are figuring out who citizens should go to when they have concerns.

“I want to make sure that the powers that we had, and the goals we have are respected in the democratic process,” Osman said. “I want to make sure the communities that I came from don’t feel like their council member has less power now than [before].”

Osman said he hasn’t seen any large changes since the amendment went into effect because city officials are clarifying how the government restructure will work.

City officials have also been working to clarify the role of how the mayor and City Council will interact with other city departments. The council has the authority to create policies for every department except the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD).

The mayor’s sole authority over the maintenance and establishment of MPD did not change under the government restructuring, meaning that the council cannot create policies for MPD.

Ward 1 Council Member Elliott Payne said he believes the council should have power to create policies for MPD under the new structure.

“This is one of those areas that if we were to be honoring question one passing and the new legislators process of council, council should have the legislative ability to put some bans on no-knock warrants,” Payne said. “That’s what we need to address, so that we can have this process of talking about how policies are working or specifically not working.”