2026-09-23 - Public Safety Civilian Oversight Board

00:05Standard.

00:11[laughter]

00:13I get it.

00:16I just want to be

00:21working.

00:22Cool.

00:24>> All right. It's 5:35 5:36. We'll get

00:27started. Um,

00:30we'll go around with introductions and

00:31what you're looking forward to most um,

00:34in the coming fall.

00:37>> I'm Kevin O'Neal, board member, and um,

00:40I am like everyone else, just looking

00:42forward to cooler weather.

00:44[clears throat]

00:46>> Um, Donald Wakeford, board member. Um,

00:49my daughter's finally old enough to go

00:50to some games, so we've taken her and

00:52she loves it. So, I'm looking forward to

00:54doing that.

00:57Hi everyone. My name's Tori. I am new

01:00here as you probably have noticed. Um,

01:03excited to be here. And for fall, I'm

01:07looking forward to

01:09the sun rising a little bit later.

01:14>> I'm Felix Bell. I'm the vice chair of

01:16the board and I'm looking forward to

01:19those perfect crunchy leaves.

01:22>> Uh, Lane Pratt, board chair. I'm looking

01:24forward to back backyard fire weather.

01:29>> Um, I'm Jocelyn Crumpton, the board

01:32secretary. I'm looking forward to not

01:35running in 90% humidity. [laughter]

01:40>> Hey, Gary. You're okay.

01:45>> We're just going around and doing a

01:46quick uh what you're looking forward to

01:48the most about it being fall. A quick

01:51introduction.

01:54How's everybody looking at me?

01:55>> It's your turn. It's your turn. I'm

01:59>> uh what I'm looking forward cooler

02:01temperatures.

02:02>> Um somebody's probably already said

02:04that. Uh I'm Gary Anox and uh what else

02:08are you guys talking

02:14>> uh Laura Copper from the Attorney's

02:15Office. I'm going to reiterate the

02:17cooler weather because this like the

02:19summer was brutal and it just should be

02:20celebrated cold weather. Cooler weather.

02:24>> Harrison Daniel with police department

02:26and cooler weather.

02:28>> Gavin Hassmer, uh, Peacec Monitor and

02:31October baseball.

02:36>> I'm Sydney Waller, management analyst,

02:38and I'm looking forward to the fall

02:41activities with the little one.

02:44Uh, I'm Katie with and I'm a management

02:47analyst with operational analysis and

02:49I'm looking forward to going to Haunted

02:52House. That sounds fun.

02:56>> Okay. Um,

02:59Lori, do you want a quick minute to

03:00introduce yourself as the newest member

03:02of the board? Just let everyone know?

03:04>> Yeah.

03:06>> Hi everyone. Um, I this is my first

03:10meeting. Uh, I've gotten a little caught

03:12up on what we're currently talking

03:13about. Um, I met with Gavin on Monday.

03:16He caught me up, which was excellent.

03:19Um, and that's just a little bit about

03:21me. Uh, I'm a doctoral candidate at the

03:24university. Um, this is my first time

03:28joining a group uh like this in the

03:32official capacity um, of the city I live

03:35in. And so I'm excited to kind of start

03:38this journey. Um,

03:41yeah,

03:42>> perfect. Yeah, perfect. Thank you.

03:44>> And then Dwight, if you want to do a

03:45quick just uh introduce yourself and

03:48what you're looking forward to in the

03:49coming fall.

03:51>> Um, I'm looking forward to Well, my name

03:54is Dwight A. I'm a member of the board

03:57and I'm looking forward to us finding

04:01contact with other parts of the

04:02community

04:04in the fall. Okay, great.

04:09All right. Uh, with that, uh, you got

04:12the minutes from last month's meeting,

04:16uh, available for quick review. If

04:18anyone has any corrections or changes,

04:22>> I put the wrong ACCD.

04:25I put still I had uh, deputies, I think,

04:29Kelly from the previous meeting. I

04:31updated that with the correct person who

04:32was here.

04:33>> Sorry about that. not

04:37>> you.

04:38>> The minute I sent it out, I saw it and I

04:40was like

04:41>> always this way. [laughter]

04:43Does anyone else

04:48see any other discrepancies or changes?

04:56And I'll move that we accept the change

04:59that Jocelyn just mentioned. I get a

05:02second.

05:03>> Second.

05:03>> Okay. Uh, all in favor of accepting the

05:05one change.

05:06>> I

05:08>> All right.

05:12Um, all right. Compliment complaint

05:14review. I don't think we have any

05:16updates. I didn't see any in the

05:19uh outreach events. I know we had a date

05:22coming up in October for the fall

05:23festival and some other stuff.

05:25>> Yeah. So, just to recap what we talked

05:29about last month, you'll want to kind of

05:31have time to think about your schedule

05:33and your availability, but we have two

05:34events that are coming up. You have the

05:38sheriff's office fall festival out at

05:41the jail facility with the I think they

05:44do a haunted house and things like that.

05:46So, that is on October 23rd. And then

05:49you a week later have uh the PD trunk or

05:53treat at the mall I believe which is on

05:57the 29th of October.

06:03>> Where was that again?

06:04>> Um so you have the fall festival on the

06:0723rd and the trunk or treat on the 29th

06:09of October.

06:10>> Where do you believe that is?

06:12>> So the fall festival be at the jail and

06:15then the trunk or treat I believe is at

06:17the mall. Oh yeah,

06:20>> the fall festival is really fun. I've

06:21done that. It's fast.

06:24>> I helped a little bit with it last year.

06:28>> So,

06:30>> we're deciding if we have capacity.

06:31>> Yeah. Who has interest in attending

06:33either of those events,

06:3623rd and 29th? So, it's a Friday evening

06:40and a Thursday evening.

06:43>> I wish I could, but with it being

06:45football season, I can't make work.

06:50I did.

06:51>> Uh, okay. Which one? Either or both.

06:56>> Uh, either or both.

06:58>> Um,

07:00>> would other people like if we had to

07:02choose? Is anyone else available? I

07:04think we could do one.

07:07>> Yeah, you probably want a buddy to help

07:08you carry things.

07:10>> Although we could change the way that we

07:11show up. Um, you know, we don't have to

07:13necessarily do what we've always done.

07:17Yeah,

07:19>> but if you set up the whole table with

07:21the tent and everything and I presume

07:23you'd have candy, that's a lot for one

07:26person to carry. Not because of

07:28strength, but just you only have two

07:29hands.

07:31[clears throat]

07:32>> You know, like there's just too much

07:33stuff, you know?

07:38>> Okay, so [clears throat] Joselyn's not

07:40available. Gary's interested in either

07:42one.

07:44Um the this date.

07:47>> Okay.

07:47>> Fall festival is 5 to 9 at the jail and

07:51the PD is 5:30 to 8.

07:54>> Yes.

07:57>> I'm also unavailable. Sorry.

07:59>> That's okay.

08:00>> Okay. Um,

08:06>> how would you like to handle that, Gary?

08:09>> I could maybe help at the beginning of

08:11the fall festival on the 23rd, but I

08:13don't think I could stay the entire

08:14time. Okay.

08:15>> Given that it's still 9:00.

08:16>> Yeah. Uh I can support the 23rd. So I

08:20think let's plan on doing that.

08:23>> Okay. We'll go ahead and uh submit that

08:28>> and then have the three of us there for

08:30as long as people around. And um

08:35yeah, I'll coordinate picking up staff

08:37the week prior.

08:38>> Okay. I don't want to hold on to that

08:40stuff for a month, but

08:41>> we'll have the next feeding the next

08:42Wednesday so I can drop it back off

08:44afterward.

08:45>> Get some candy.

08:46>> Okay,

08:48>> perfect. So, I will um

08:53I can't remember if there's coordination

08:55on the setup

08:57already included.

08:59>> Uh I think once we register, we'll

09:01probably get some of that information

09:03back from the sheriff's department. So,

09:05just keep an eye on your emails and I'll

09:07um send any updates, but I'll plan on

09:09picking the stuff up from staff and then

09:12uh scooting over there early from work.

09:14It's not close to where I work anyway.

09:16>> They assign you a space. Yeah. Can you

09:19just set up the T? It take long.

09:20>> Yeah, I did it two years ago.

09:22>> Okay.

09:22>> Should be pretty good. Okay, that sounds

09:25good.

09:28>> Uh so, that's outreach events policy

09:30review. I saw updates from the sheriff's

09:33office. Hey, counselor.

09:36>> There you go. Excuse me. That

09:40>> um I saw updates regarding individual

09:44um inmate deaths in through this week,

09:49last week, Wednesday.

09:51>> Yes. So, I sent out um I think it was

09:54with a reminder last week.

09:58There were two particular cases that had

10:00information, the majority of it for week

10:02one. There was one document for another.

10:05Um,

10:07and we what you have included as a hard

10:09copy is a policy that was given to us

10:12again by the sheriff's office that I

10:15don't think you had been given

10:16previously in all the batches of

10:18information that we sent you. Um, I

10:22think the only outstanding thing that

10:24I'm aware of at this point is some body

10:28cam video that the sheriff's office is

10:32working on the redactions at this point

10:34in time. And I think I explained it in

10:36my email that

10:39what what I worked with them on is the

10:42initial deputy um and possibly even the

10:47supervisor

10:49their body cam the initial ones on scene

10:51as opposed to you know eventually if

10:54there were 15 people on the scene. and

10:56ask for all 15 of them at that point.

10:58But, you know, certainly if you all have

11:00concerns or want to see more than that,

11:02we can make that request. But that's

11:04what they're working on at the moment.

11:06Um, the other thing was if there's a

11:09need to see any sort of

11:12video feed from

11:15the jail facility itself. Um, that would

11:18be something that I would have to look

11:19at on behalf of of the group and then

11:23report back to you. So just let us know

11:25about that as well.

11:28I have a is there any way for all the

11:31different documents we're getting as we

11:33get them that they're uploaded into the

11:36drive that was shared with us?

11:39Um where like we were given essentially

11:41the sheriff's office policy review via

11:44one drive where a lot of the like

11:45individual where as we get those those

11:48can be updated too mainly so they're yes

11:51>> if I'm like looking at one case I can be

11:53like okay here's all the documents we've

11:54received. Yeah, you can do that.

11:56>> That would just be helpful from as I'm

11:58like going through of like, have we

11:59received this specific thing for this

12:01specific death

12:03would be helpful from a um analysis

12:06standpoint for me.

12:09>> Yeah. What we'll do is we'll use that

12:10same link and then we'll just take all

12:13the loose PDFs that you may have

12:15received over the last couple months and

12:17just included in the in the link.

12:20>> That would be helpful. Yeah. Mainly just

12:22so I'm going to one spot.

12:23>> Yeah. If I'm looking at files instead of

12:26having to go through my emails, I hate

12:28Outlooks.

12:45>> Yeah, we're still on policy. Anyone has

12:47any

12:49>> Josh does, but if anyone else has stuff

12:51that No. Yeah, absolutely. Um, so I know

12:54our board has jurisdiction of law

12:56enforcement, but we are a county entity.

12:58Would it be possible to get open records

13:01from like safety and risk of their

13:03receipts of per the like death policy is

13:06they're supposed to be receiving

13:08correspondence from sheriff?

13:11>> Um,

13:12>> it's open record. Open records.

13:16It is, but to the point too where your

13:18ordinance specifically states that your

13:21operating agencies for this board are

13:24listed in the ordinance as you know for

13:27example manager's office my office as in

13:31for

13:32agencies. So

13:35I can look into that but I'm not sure

13:36that that will work. And the fact that

13:38even though it's an open records, you

13:40can get that information as far as being

13:42used in your analysis would be

13:45counterintuitive to the ordinance

13:48jurisdiction.

13:49>> Yeah. But if if the policy is that they

13:51are supposed to be coordinating with

13:53various agencies and at this point

13:55they're telling me they have no records.

13:58But if that department has records, I

14:00think that is pertinent to our

14:01investigation.

14:05>> Yeah. And what specific records are you

14:08looking for?

14:08>> I have three. I would love the 911 calls

14:11like dispatch calls to central

14:13communications that should be coming

14:14from the jail for any incidents.

14:18I'd like any correspondence with safety

14:21and risk for the policy they're supposed

14:23to have communicated.

14:25And I don't even like I would like

14:28whatever safety and risk has done with

14:29it, but I recognize that within an open

14:31records I might just get a chart of like

14:33this is the day we received. Here's the

14:35case number. Honestly, I don't even know

14:37what safety and risk does with that

14:39information. I would love to know more

14:40of like what that even means.

14:44Um, and then I'd also really like um

14:48from the coroner

14:50again, open records per Georgia's death

14:54investigation act. Again, I'm not an

14:56attorney. There's some fun OCA OCGA.

15:00It's essentially saying that the Georgia

15:02Death Investigation Act requires that

15:04the coroner or the county medical

15:06examiner of the county where the body is

15:08found or the death occurs be notified

15:10and that a medical examiner inquiry is

15:12done for all the deaths. And then it

15:14lists like 11 examples and one of the

15:17example is when an inmate of a state

15:19hospital or state, county or city

15:23institution, penal institution.

15:27I would like copies of those medical

15:29examiner's inquiries.

15:31Again, I don't have anything from the

15:33sheriff's office of any communication

15:34with the coroner.

15:41>> I mean, as far as the records though

15:43from like a medical examiner,

15:46I mean, I don't even know if those are

15:48going to be releasable to you because of

15:49the medical protections.

15:52>> Well, I know like autopsies from GBI is

15:54releasable through open records.

15:58Correct. I mean,

16:01with redactions.

16:02>> Yeah, of course. I want to protect

16:05the families, the people who have fosted

16:07away. Like, I don't think that

16:08information necessarily needs to be like

16:10given out. But just from a I'm at this

16:14point now I'm cross referencing

16:18communication with agencies

16:24because for some of the deaths we have

16:26received reports where it's like EMS was

16:28called at this time like it's very

16:30detailed incident reports and then some

16:31incidents reports are like this person

16:34got in a disagreement with their

16:36cellmate and then that was it or I have

16:38no idea if protocol was followed. I have

16:41no idea.

16:50>> Um

16:51>> Joselyn, what's that code section?

16:53>> 451620.

17:04Um, also I rewatched the Sheriff's Press

17:09briefing from last summer and they

17:11referenced the ACC coroner's report on

17:14overdose deaths in 2024

17:18and they had all sorts of numbers that I

17:20would be curious

17:22that data from the coroner would be

17:24something we could review because he ref

17:27or the sheriff referenced that there was

17:28one in jail custody

17:30and again at this point we have not

17:32received Any

17:35information on the causes of deaths for

17:37most of these people?

17:48>> So specifically though, I mean for 911,

17:51let's start with 911. We're looking for

17:54dispatch calls related to

17:58>> like a met whatever emergency was on

18:02site or I mean also we we these are I'm

18:06reviewing in custody death then that

18:08gets also tricky of like while they

18:10might not have passed away in the jail

18:12if they're still in custody and passed

18:13away at the hospital there still would

18:15have been a reason for them to have been

18:17transferred I don't want like the

18:19starting I'm assuming if they're being

18:21moved to a hospital they're being moved

18:23by EMS

18:25>> captain. Is that typically

18:27>> correct? So if if a person has a if they

18:31let's say they they

18:33for example if they have um

18:36they're suspected of having an overdose

18:41um nursing staff will administer you

18:44know their first aid and things they

18:46need to do and then yes EMS would be

18:47called and and then they would you know

18:50come and do what they need to do. They

18:52would be transported by EMS. Um the only

18:54time a person would actually be

18:55transported by um in in a sheriff's

18:59office unit if it's if it's it's not at

19:01an acute level um and nurses that feel

19:04that they can be transported by that but

19:06the most part 95% of our people

19:09>> um they go by ambulance.

19:10>> Yeah.

19:12>> And again it' be so again we've had I

19:15the the incident reports that we have

19:16received is a spectrum of information in

19:19the incident reports. So instant reports

19:21are really helpful where it's like this

19:23was called medical these medical people

19:25were called like EMS was called we f you

19:28know like the coroner was called this

19:30person was called and so for those

19:31that's like really helpful I'm like okay

19:33check check we followed the policy and

19:34then some investig or incident reports

19:36it's just like

19:38you know like disagreement with cellmate

19:41you know talk to them and then put them

19:43back in their cell and then that's all I

19:45have where I was like where was the

19:47medical emergency where was the like

19:49conflict what top it like and so it is a

19:52spectrum of information within these

19:53incident reports. Um,

19:57>> so I guess what I would ask for then is

19:59the specifics on which particular cases

20:02you're wanting the 911 for which dates.

20:07Just a blanket. Give us

20:08>> I mean can I mean so we have

20:12like the 12 deaths up to this point.

20:16Uh that I can give you like the date

20:19that I believe they passed away. But

20:22again, all the some of the the charts

20:23I've received from sheriff is incomplete

20:26where it only includes some people.

20:32So like I've received the in custody

20:34inmate deaths which does not include all

20:36of the people's names. We've we've we've

20:39received three different forms and none

20:41of them are all

20:43like there's different names on

20:44different lists. And so I can give you

20:47from my understanding date of deaths and

20:50people if that's helpful.

20:52>> Yeah. I mean because I mean what I'm

20:54going to need is something to forward on

20:55to police records for dispatch to start

21:00their work but it's going to need to be

21:02somewhat specific to the individual with

21:03the date that you're

21:04>> Yeah, I'm happy to do that. I have a

21:06spreadsheet. I can copy and paste that.

21:09Um, and then another from another

21:12records as well is I am missing we're

21:14missing a person who died in 2019. Like

21:18we don't even have any records from

21:19them.

21:20>> Who is that? Who's that person?

21:21>> I can give you the number.

21:23>> Oh wow.

21:24>> Um,

21:28>> it's the only death from 19. It's

21:3119022001.

21:38Um, but again, I can also send you an

21:41email with that. We haven't received any

21:43records for that person yet either.

21:48>> Okay. Okay. So, 911 dispatch for

21:50specific individuals. And then you said

21:53HR risk for

21:56>> for or safety and risk. And I don't

21:58really know anything about that

21:59department

22:00or their policies or procedures or even.

22:02So like for the policy, it's sheriff is

22:06supposed to notify safety and risk

22:09>> and then that's where the policy end. I

22:10have no idea what safety and risk then

22:12does with that piece of information or

22:14what the purpose of the notification is.

22:16But again, pulling it from sheriff's

22:18policies that they're supposed to

22:24know if they again I just want to know

22:27if they're following their policy.

22:28Again, like as a curious human, I also

22:31have questions of like then what does

22:33safety and risk do with this? But

22:36>> outside of our jurisdiction. Yeah. And

22:37I'm totally behind that.

22:39>> The question is though,

22:41>> is the sheriff following their policy by

22:43notifying safety rest? So using that

22:45same list for the 911 calls, if I were

22:48to that to HR to just basically get

22:52confirmation of whether they were

22:53contacted. Yes.

22:55>> By the sheriff's department

22:56>> and like when they were contacted.

23:02>> I'm curious like who's safety and who's

23:05risk?

23:06>> They're all the same. It's it's a

23:08division of the human resources

23:10department.

23:11>> I mean like is it safety for the city?

23:13Is it safety for the people? Is it

23:16safety for employees?

23:18>> It's for the government.

23:19>> Okay.

23:19>> It's it's basically our

23:23insurance, you know, coverage.

23:25>> Gotcha. Gotcha. Gotcha.

23:29>> That really helps.

23:30>> And that would also make sense that it

23:31would be included in a sheriff's policy.

23:33>> Definitely.

23:34>> Sure. of like I would want that line

23:37item on my policy to say

23:41>> was on the on again worked it was a city

23:46insurance or whatever. Um

23:52>> and then I think the last one was the

23:54coroner

23:54>> the coroner. Yeah.

23:56>> And again specifics on

23:59>> communication of like had they received

24:00communication. So again, some incident

24:02reports like the coroner came and

24:04removed the body where I'm like is that

24:07documented like what you know like and

24:10then also again like I don't have any

24:12documentation that GBI was communicated

24:15with and I understand that GBI is not

24:16within our jurisdiction. So I can't ask

24:19can't require GBI give us records

24:22>> but sheriff

24:23>> but according to GBI's policies they do

24:26send communication back to local county

24:29and so hypothetically the local county

24:31should have all that communication back

24:32from GBI

24:35which we have not received any

24:37documentation of

24:39and so again I know we're talking about

24:41levels of jurisdiction we're talking

24:42about multiple policies

24:44and I know our our policy that we can

24:48focus on is with the sheriff.

24:50But I do think,

24:52you know, it's trying to figure out

24:53which part of the breakdown are we

24:55talking about.

24:58>> Okay. So, you'll give me that list and

25:00then from there contact 911.

25:04I'll ask HR about

25:07if and when they were contacted

25:10and then with same with the coroner

25:13if and when they were contacted on those

25:15same deaths.

25:17>> Yes. Okay.

25:18>> I mean I I'd also like I don't know who

25:20would provide me with the information of

25:22what causes of death were because at

25:24this point we have not received that. I

25:26don't know if that would be coming from

25:27coroner's office. They determine and

25:29they send it back. I mean, my

25:31understanding is too is

25:33>> my understander is also supposed to or

25:35the sheriff is supposed to loop in GBI

25:38and they also do an investigation.

25:42>> So, I did contact the coroner last month

25:45after our meeting. Um

25:48he confirmed that

25:50in custody um

25:54or in custody and passes away at a

25:57hospital facility

25:59uh will always be sent for autopsy. So

26:01the cause and manner of death will be

26:02determined by the medical examiner's

26:04office.

26:06So it's not a determination by the

26:09corner.

26:09>> The medical examiner's office of

26:12>> the state

26:13>> of GPI

26:15>> which I totally get. I know that you

26:16need someone else to investigate when

26:18there's death in custody. I'm totally

26:19for that. It's just now again we're

26:22there's another level of bureaucracy we

26:25have to jump through. Um but again I

26:30my understanding from GBI's policy is

26:32that they should be communicating to

26:34local county.

26:37So there should be some form of records

26:40of that communication. I don't dis

26:43>> we've requested that and so you know

26:47that would ultimately be the sheriff's

26:48department to release that.

26:51>> Yeah. Um

26:56>> guess we're also assuming that the GBI

26:58followed through

27:00on communicating.

27:02>> Yep.

27:02>> Yeah. I would also again like I would

27:04love to see if like sheriff you know

27:06sent it off and said please help but

27:08then GBI was like totaling the thumbs

27:10for six months. I think that's important

27:12for us to know of like we did our job.

27:13We did our due diligence.

27:15>> Absolutely.

27:16>> I do I do know that those autopsies from

27:18GBI can take months and that's enough.

27:20>> Oh absolutely.

27:22>> You said the auto

27:24>> can take months.

27:25>> Autopsies can take a while. the crime

27:27lab is so backed up like you'll be

27:31waiting.

27:31>> Captain Mallister, one thing I've

27:34noticed and maybe you can clarify this

27:35for us is

27:38when there is a death and a

27:40determination in the investigation has

27:43been made by the GBI. Is that something

27:45that is just simply

27:48email to whoever the contact is at

27:50sheriff or is there an actual report

27:52that is immediately to the sheriff's

27:54department? And so that that could vary

27:56e sometimes it'll be an email back to

27:59our investigative unit. Um or it could

28:02be if their actual report once they

28:05finalize their report then you know we

28:07can request that from them whatever. I

28:09know that when I when I was in um IIA at

28:12that point and we had those incidents

28:14happen I would have to actually request

28:16it. That's not something they read

28:21gave to us. we would have to request it

28:22from a lake and it does and you know all

28:24absolutely correct it does take months

28:26sometimes to get that information back

28:29um from them but uh but once we request

28:31it in there you know they usually

28:33typically send us either that PDF or

28:36send us a disc or whatever the case may

28:37be

28:38>> [clears throat]

28:38>> u of their findings and then we just

28:40include it in

28:41>> but I I think there are certainly some

28:44I'm not saying there are all for the

28:45cases that you you all are looking at

28:47but you have emails in there I think to

28:51captain's point that there wasn't

28:53necessarily a formal report that was

28:56given or issued

28:57>> correct

28:57>> to the sheriff's department as much as

28:59it wasn't

29:01an email.

29:02>> Yeah.

29:03>> So,

29:04>> I mean, again, we're still in the

29:06investigation stage of this policy

29:08review, but one of our recommendations

29:10might be part of the policy we add uh is

29:13they request the records from GBI and

29:15maintain records. So again, the fact

29:17that it's taking kind of months to find

29:19all these records, to me, when someone

29:21dies in custody, we should have a packet

29:23of like this person has died. Here's all

29:24of our documentation in one space. Like

29:28we also haven't received any records

29:29from internal affairs of their

29:31investigation of the deaths.

29:34Is that

29:35>> Well, this information is compiled by

29:37them. This comes from them,

29:40>> right? We haven't gotten any reports of

29:41like, you know, so we got or two times

29:45two weeks ago we got this spreadsheet

29:47that doesn't really have labels.

29:51>> That that particular one. Yes. I trying

29:53to run that down myself.

29:55>> Yeah.

29:55>> Where like it talks about unfounded,

29:57exonerated.

29:58>> Exactly.

29:59>> That to me indicates an internal

30:01investigation.

30:02>> Yes. And I I've tried to run that down

30:05myself and I'm not even sure who created

30:07that,

30:08>> where that actually came from.

30:10>> Um, while I am familiar with

30:13that information that's on there,

30:15>> yeah,

30:16>> I'm not exactly sure where it came from

30:18is is the the thing. So, yeah,

30:20>> I've been actually been working on that.

30:22>> Yeah. And

30:23>> and same with like we were given an

30:25investigation checklist,

30:27death checklist. Like we haven't

30:29received one of these for any of the

30:31deaths.

30:32>> A checklist here,

30:33>> a completed checklist. I have a template

30:35and that's the only checklist I've ever

30:37received.

30:39>> And of like if we're not doing this

30:41policy protocol, like

30:44>> is this form helpful? Is it not helpful?

30:45If it's not being used, why is it being

30:48used? You know, stuff of that nature.

30:51And so again, I don't know if that's

30:53like within your internal as someone who

30:56uses outdated software in my 40hour a

30:59week job, you know, like sometimes it's

31:00like this is what I print out, but it's

31:02like as I input the information, it's

31:04inputed within it and it's like really

31:06hard to print. It's really hard to

31:07consolidate. So I get like if that's the

31:09situation, but then

31:10>> absolutely

31:12>> I think this is a great checklist from a

31:14like we followed protocol all the way

31:16down I mean down to like transported to

31:18crime lab you know GBI notified C

31:21notified

31:22>> right

31:22>> or at scene yes no who came

31:27>> so I have to speak a little bit to that

31:29yeah

31:29>> particular

31:31>> that particular form

31:33>> that particular form came about just

31:35within the last couple years um

31:41a previous captain

31:44um who was at the PD for quite some

31:46time. So, a lot of that information is

31:48that was a form that he used while he

31:50was at the PD and introduced that to the

31:52sheriff's office the time that he was

31:54there. So, that's a relatively new form.

31:57So,

31:57>> yeah, I'm probably say that that

32:02and then the real truth that probably

32:03hasn't been because it was recently

32:05introduced within the last

32:07Okay. I mean, we've also had seven or

32:10eight debts in the last couple years,

32:12too, though.

32:13>> I guess.

32:14>> Yeah.

32:14>> I'm just telling you.

32:15>> Yeah, absolutely. Of like again, but

32:17that's like practicality versus

32:19theoretical of like yes, we have these

32:21great policies,

32:22>> right?

32:23>> But that's not what's being done.

32:26Um,

32:27>> and so that I mean, it also says attach

32:29this form to the incident report. And

32:30again, like most of my incident reports

32:33are very vague and not again, it's the

32:36spectrum. Some incident reports I'm

32:37like, "Thank you. I could see every step

32:40that this officer took to address the

32:43concern." And then some incident reports

32:45I don't even know. I had an incident

32:47report from like a month before and

32:48that's the only incident report we've

32:49received where it's and I can I can

32:55do I my my plan for the next month is to

32:57also go through those from a

32:59what are we missing versus like this

33:01this case file is more complete because

33:03I do have those steps and policies

33:05already versus some I don't.

33:08Um,

33:10again, I recognize it takes a lot of

33:12work, but also if someone's dying in

33:14custody, I think we should like all

33:16those records should be quickly

33:17accessible from a like we did our due

33:20diligence. Here you go

33:23standpoint.

33:26>> Seems like it would also prevent

33:29work on the back end because you're

33:31having to run around to try to find

33:32things in 20 different places and if it

33:34was all compiled together,

33:36>> right? So, it's hard work at the front

33:38end, but it makes things easier, right?

33:41>> It also makes things easier

33:45for whoever is seeking to find us

33:48liable.

33:52It may be very expensive to write down

33:55from their perspective. I'm playing

33:56devil's advocate here. I know that

33:59saying it's okay. But there have been

34:01several jobs that I've worked that have

34:03been subject to higher level

34:06investigations and it's encouraged not

34:09to use things like full names and

34:12whenever possible use initials and to be

34:15vague in written communications.

34:18So while that may not be a good thing,

34:22I wouldn't say if it's part of the

34:25culture.

34:28>> I would be

34:32we've had different lives. did but I

34:35would be very surprised

34:38doesn't work.

34:39>> Yeah, I mean I do think it is

34:42all the points like there is doesn't

34:44seem to be consistency with how the

34:47reporting is managed across the

34:48different cases with how it's all

34:50compiled across the different cases with

34:53completeness of records following the

34:55stated one case and then not others. So

34:59I think that overall discrepancy where

35:01there doesn't seem to be

35:04a standard process that's actually being

35:06followed in practice. I think that is

35:09the overall

35:11to me that is one of the overall

35:12concerns of what we've seen from what

35:14we've asked for and what we've gotten

35:16back that there are procedures there are

35:18policies in place there are checklists

35:20that have been written they're not all

35:22being applied

35:24across all cases um

35:27yeah even to your point captain like in

35:30the last few years this relatively new

35:32form that's existed doesn't seem to be

35:34used in any of those cases that fits

35:36within in that couple of years, even if

35:38it's a new form that would not go all

35:39the way back. And I know that you guys

35:41have provided information beyond the

35:42years that we asked for. Totally

35:44understand that it wouldn't we wouldn't

35:46see that checklist before it existed.

35:48>> Right.

35:48>> But we're not seeing it for when it did

35:49exist either. So,

35:51>> right.

35:53>> Yeah.

35:54>> And again, if it's I can't remember if

35:56the check I think the checklist is

35:57referenced in the policy. So then again,

35:59if it's referenced in the policy, it

36:00needs to be completed or it doesn't need

36:02to be in the policy. Again, our our task

36:05is reviewing a policy.

36:14>> Anyways,

36:19>> yeah, I mean actually it is in the

36:21policy. Upon a completion of

36:22investigation, the investigation agency

36:23submit a copy of the report and its

36:25findings to the sheriff. Again, you

36:26can't compel GBI to do things to follow

36:29your policy. I totally get that as well.

36:30But again it's like referenced of like

36:32yes and this would make a complete

36:34>> investigation

36:45[clears throat]

36:50when you send me that list then what

36:52I'll do is I'll reach out to these I

36:53mean the 911 dispatch I'm not worried

36:55about

36:57pull that information in time um with HR

37:00and Warren are I'll ask them to confirm

37:03some of that stuff. I not going to ask

37:05them at this point for a bunch of

37:07records and vehicles and stuff. I think

37:08it's just a matter of you contact.

37:15>> Uh Gavin, is there any this might be for

37:19attorney as well? uh no one is required

37:22to provide us with information on a

37:24static basis as in like if a report in a

37:27certain scenario is compiled a copy will

37:30be provided to trace cop as a matter of

37:32policy that's that's not the case

37:33anywhere right we have to request

37:35affirmatively for that if that's

37:38>> good

37:48I also so yes I can give you those list

37:50of people too

37:53on a different so every time we've I've

37:57gotten new lists of people who've passed

37:59away within custody there's new people

38:01who pop up and so I'd almost like to

38:03know from the coroner of like the

38:06communication from the jail between 2019

38:08and 2026 from a like we have someone

38:12who's passed away not because I think

38:14the sheriff is intentionally hiding

38:15names of like I'd be curious who else I

38:18mean again every time I've gone on a new

38:20list. We have yet another person who

38:21gets added to that list from just I

38:24think poor recordkeeping.

38:26And so, yes, I can give you a list to

38:27see if they cross reference, but I'm

38:29also curious if there's other deaths

38:31that aren't popping up. And again, this

38:34is my way of cross referencing of making

38:36sure our lists are accurate.

38:41>> Yeah. I mean, and I understand where

38:43you're coming from. I don't know if I'm

38:44willing to ask the corner to open

38:46records from 2019.

38:49Yeah. of communication of the jail

38:51though. Like I mean right now it looks

38:52like we have maybe 14

38:56from 19 to

39:0413

39:06where I feel like that wouldn't be that

39:07many records of the sheriff

39:09communicating with the coroner's office.

39:14And again, I'm not sure why the sheriff

39:16from a jail perspective likely

39:18communicating with coroner

39:22outside of someone dying in custody.

39:30I will ask if there's if he's willing to

39:33look at specific emails related to jail

39:36communication. Um,

39:41>> again, if that's not recordkeeping from

39:42the coroner's office, like also like to

39:45me that should be pretty quick records

39:47of like yes, we've had or like the

39:50coding within the like whatever like

39:52tracking systems they have of like

39:55these are

39:57>> Well, I think I think to ask him if

39:59there's records related to deaths at the

40:01jail is one. Yes, I think there is a

40:03file for that that he could easily pull.

40:05It's another to say, well, I want to

40:06know your communication regarding all

40:09these deaths.

40:10>> Again, I think that because the

40:12foreigners are outside of our purview,

40:14the real benefit of just getting them to

40:17voluntarily provide that is just to

40:22proofread the list that we have, right?

40:24Because every single death in jail

40:25should have been communicated to the

40:27coroner to do their state required and

40:29county required diligence.

40:31So, the sort of master list of every

40:33death in custody should be cross

40:35referenced to the coroner has. And that

40:38would uh alleviate some of the concern

40:41that we've gotten different lists,

40:44different subd departments of the

40:46sheriff's office where there's names

40:47that appear on one list that don't

40:48appear on a different list that do

40:49appear on and there's names that only

40:51appear in a press release, etc. So, if

40:54we could get one consolidated list.

40:56>> Yeah. And I'm willing

40:57>> that's where I think the records from

40:59the corner would be particularly

41:00helpful.

41:01Well, and again, I think I'm willing to

41:02ask, is there a list, documented list

41:04from 19 onward of all bail debts that

41:08the border's office has invested?

41:10>> I think that's different than me saying,

41:12"I want all of your emails."

41:13>> Yeah.

41:15>> Emails. I want are are lists the same?

41:18Are they different? Are we missing?

41:19>> I don't have a problem asking for a

41:21list. I It just sounded like we were

41:22getting

41:22>> Oh, yeah. I don't need like nitty-gritty

41:24emails. It's more so I guess when I say

41:26open records, in my head,

41:28>> we have different definitions because I

41:29get that. That's you think open every

41:32communication. That's not what I'm

41:33asking for. It's more so of like our our

41:36documentation system

41:38of

41:40cross communication.

41:42>> Yes.

41:47>> And again that would be the same with

41:49safety and risk of like what happens

41:51safety and risk might have someone else

41:53that I'm not we're not aware of. And I

41:56think we might get conflicting lists

41:57from a like how are we defining

42:01death in custody, you know, it's like

42:03not just like on property. To me, death

42:05and custody could also be hospital. And

42:06then that gets tricky because the corner

42:08probably would not be called in for that

42:09one because it's in a hospital setting.

42:12>> Yeah.

42:12>> And so then I understand that like some

42:14of those things might not be on the

42:15coroner's list

42:18because even though they died while in

42:19custody, but in a hospital setting,

42:21that's going to be my understanding of

42:22that. It would be a different

42:25protocol.

42:28>> Yeah, I mean we'll certainly ask the

42:30question. I think if you still give me

42:32that list that we can utilize for that

42:35purpose, we'll we'll try to generalize

42:37it also with any other you know unknown

42:40desks that uh they may have either at HR

42:43or the corner be beyond that list then

42:47but I still think the list would be a

42:49good starting point for them. So yeah.

42:51Yeah, I think that kind of gets to the

42:53root question that started the whole

42:55study in the first place, which was last

42:57year seemed to have a higher number of

42:58deaths than normal,

43:00but if we don't know the total number,

43:02it's hard to say for sure by how much

43:04and how it compares to other years.

43:05Sure.

43:13>> I have a question just out of curiosity.

43:16Um, this might be a bit off subject, but

43:19for the deaths that occur in custody,

43:23how often do that families request

43:27records?

43:30>> I'm not even sure.

43:31>> You're not sure?

43:32>> That's the in truth. I'm not sure.

43:35>> I just wonder if the process is the

43:37same. Like, do you if they're requesting

43:39records, is it still a long process for

43:41them to get records? Yeah, I think it's

43:44still an open records request for them

43:46as well um to request those. I mean,

43:48anybody can do open records request and

43:51it's something like that I would think

43:52would normally come through their

43:54attorney as well. Um if they're if

43:57they're looking to, you know, some type

43:59of litigation or whatever the case may

44:00be. But yeah, I think they would still

44:03be able to do that and get that same

44:06same information that anybody else would

44:08get.

44:09>> That's what I'm saying.

44:12What do you mean by len

44:14>> like if it if

44:15>> time for them to get it or like the

44:17amount of information that they get?

44:19>> The time frame to get it. Like if it

44:21takes one of us three months, would it

44:23also take a family? It

44:24>> it I say yes because it depends on the

44:28amount of course the amount of open

44:29records requests that we get, which we

44:31do get quite a bit. So that's what

44:33determines how long it actually takes to

44:35get it. Um, a lot of times you know

44:38based on what we're already going

44:39through or we're already requesting or

44:40what we're already getting with those u

44:43different records requests that we get

44:47that's communicated it is communicated

44:49back to the to the person as well as

44:52take x amount of time to get in

44:55there. I have worked with um the the

45:00deputies in charge of the open records

45:02request for a few of the relatively

45:05recent members through their attorneys

45:07have asked for records and it dep it it

45:10also depends on what they're asking for.

45:11or if they're asking for medical

45:12records, um those are easier to turn

45:15over. If they're asking for, you know,

45:18reports and and those types of things,

45:19then it um it is still subject to the

45:22same, you know, you get the consent

45:24report

45:26and um and then while the investigation

45:30is still pending, you know, those are

45:33exempt disclosure. So, got to wait until

45:35that's finished. the the initial or like

45:38the just the general medical records

45:40that would be generated while someone is

45:41in custody. Um provided they have the

45:44appropriate like HIPPA waiver as a

45:46representative. I'm assuming that um

45:48then those are relatively easy to to

45:50turn over.

45:56I can't speak for anybody but myself and

45:58I've never died in jail. But my

46:00experience with justice system, not just

46:03in this county, but anywhere. If you

46:06have an attorney, the experience is just

46:09really different because they know what

46:10to ask for. They know how to say it.

46:13They know how to word it. And they don't

46:14get tired because it's not their family

46:18who is hurting. um say you have like a

46:22bureaucratic resiliency that just

46:24doesn't happen when you're a grieving

46:26mom trying to fill out forms on your

46:28phone in between funerals, you know? So,

46:32I don't I can't say that that's

46:34necessarily part of this specifically,

46:36but it does kind of inform how I see

46:39things.

46:47I also can only imagine how hellacious

46:50open records have now been with AI. Like

46:53AI thinking of like all the things.

46:56>> Exactly.

46:56>> A lot of [laughter] empathy in that

46:58regard.

46:58>> Exactly. That

47:00>> like you know normal open records

47:02request used to be like these incident

47:04reports from this time and this time.

47:05Now it's probably a list of 15 things.

47:07>> Right.

47:08>> No comment. [laughter]

47:10>> Exactly.

47:12So lots of empathy in that regard.

47:26I have one question about we were given

47:28training bulletins

47:30which which then looked like they turned

47:32into policy. Can you tell me a little

47:34bit about like what's the difference

47:35between a training bulletin versus

47:37policy? So, so actually the training

47:40bulletins come from the policy. So, it's

47:42the other way around. So, got

47:44>> um so say we have a specific section we

47:46want to highlight or talk about with

47:49with staff with employees.

47:50>> So, that a particular thing will come

47:52that training bulletin. Yeah.

47:54>> And then you know we'll talk about it

47:55whatever examples whatever we need to

47:56talk about in that and then

47:58>> as reference back to the policy.

48:01>> So it's it's the policy first train come

48:05out.

48:06>> Got it. So, is it like a memo based off

48:08of the policy?

48:27>> Anyone else have additional questions,

48:30comments regarding

48:32policy 1.601? 601.

48:36>> No, but thank you for your diligence.

48:37>> Yes. Thank you.

48:38>> Yeah.

48:41>> Um we'll continue to keep it on the

48:43agenda for October and follow up with

48:45any updates um as we get them.

48:49Um our next item of business is uh

48:53continuation of the technology

48:55discussion. Um

48:57obviously since our last meeting

49:02um the PD let go the civilian who is all

49:07responsible for the real time crime

49:10center and the application of technology

49:12across the police department um for

49:15misuse of the block safety license plate

49:18reader system. Um the press release came

49:21out and I believe actions took place the

49:23Friday after our last meeting

49:26um with an allegation coming from that

49:29person's ex-wife the day after our last

49:31meeting that she suspected he had been

49:33misusing the system. I think that's all

49:36accurate from what has been reported

49:40from both the press release and further

49:41reporting locally. Um, so I guess I'm

49:44opening the floor to

49:47any other further questions, comments,

49:49thoughts that came about since that news

49:52came out right after our last meeting.

49:55Uh we observed when we were talking

49:56about it last time um this began with

49:59our our June meeting and then um we

50:03didn't meet in July, but I clarified

50:04with some follow-up questions um to the

50:07deputy chief and to to ACCPD before the

50:11August meeting um about their audit

50:13process and review. Um what we were

50:16given were reports that actually

50:18detailed a you know system of auditing

50:21that had been in place in 2026.

50:23Um and uh that obviously did not cover

50:27the time period of the events Mr. Barker

50:30is accused of or alleged to have

50:32participated in. Um so that system was

50:36put in place after these alleged uh

50:38violations of the law. Um additionally,

50:41from what I understand, those auditing

50:43procedures are temporarily

50:46on hold or uh under under Chief Salter's

50:49executive order, are they permanently

50:51altered? um to the new the new structure

50:54as detailed in the executive order put

50:57out by the police.

50:58>> No, good question. Uh we have not

51:00changed the auditing procedure at all.

51:02Okay.

51:03>> The changes that the chief

51:04>> right to do with what users are allowed

51:08to do in the system and who's allowed to

51:10access the system at certain levels.

51:13>> Thank you. Yeah, crucial clarification.

51:15So his executive order detailed how

51:17access to the system will be maintained

51:20going forward. And and to to sum it up

51:23to sum it up for the record, no one

51:25below the level of lieutenant can use

51:27the system and even then you have to

51:29have approval from someone higher up the

51:31command structure.

51:33>> That's right.

51:33>> Okay. But the auditing structure that we

51:36have seen reports from for 2026 will

51:39remain in place.

51:40>> Correct.

51:40>> Okay.

51:42>> Can I just add one?

51:43>> Yeah. So the current audits are through

51:46IIA. Who is there? Who's the person or

51:48the department running those audits?

51:50>> Yep. So there's two things going um in

51:53terms of auditing. One's kind of I guess

51:55you call it more of a review, but it is

51:57an audit I guess.

51:58>> So at the captain level, what they have

52:00to do is they go through and do more

52:04continuous reviews of the activity and

52:08that's specific to anything that gets

52:10flagged in the system. So the system's

52:12designed that uh any kind of abnormal

52:16activity or behavior by a user in the

52:18system gets an alert and then that alert

52:21has to be reviewed by a captain. So

52:24that's an ongoing process. The second

52:27part is

52:29through our office of professional

52:31standards and that specifically is more

52:34of an audit. So, one, they're going back

52:37and checking that the reviews are being

52:38done by the captain

52:40level and making sure that's happening.

52:42And then two, they're doing a randomized

52:45inspection or audit of user activity as

52:48well. And then they're generating that

52:50quarterly report. Okay. So, that the

52:52reports that we saw for Q1 and Q2 were

52:55produced by OBS.

52:56>> That's correct.

52:57>> Thank you.

52:59I know that was one of the questions

53:00that I think got mentioned at least by

53:02the news reporting was wait did the guy

53:04who just get fired write the audit

53:06reports that yeah so I just wanted to

53:08clarify that

53:10>> when you say user activity is there like

53:13a an audit trail like

53:16>> okay

53:17>> yeah good question so uh every person

53:20that logs in has their own user account

53:23you have to log in with your access

53:25credentials and nobody else's and then

53:27all of your activity is tracked in the

53:30system. So every time you do a search or

53:32any kind of lookup, it creates a log

53:35file. Date, the time, what you did, who

53:37did it, uh, and all the other details

53:39that come along with that.

53:41>> It also surveillance.

53:43>> What do you mean surveillance?

53:44>> Like um,

53:48like you know how if you're in a jail

53:50and you're on a computer, there's

53:51cameras watching. So like

53:55even if someone were to

53:58log in under someone else, you can see

54:00who it was.

54:04>> So you Sorry, are you asking like if

54:07there's a camera that's watching the

54:08person that's logging in to a computer?

54:11>> Yeah.

54:13>> Uh no, I mean they're typically the

54:15officers when they're using it would be

54:17in their car. like if if I access and

54:19I'm sitting in my office. I don't have a

54:21camera sitting on the office but um it's

54:26strictly prohibited to share your access

54:29credentials to get in. Um and then it

54:32would be also prohibited to use somebody

54:34else's if you were to get it. Uh so that

54:36would violate our policy. The other

54:39thing is um

54:42something that is a change coming up and

54:45we're about to go to this change too is

54:47adding what's called single sign on and

54:50so that's an additional security measure

54:52for these types of systems. It's

54:53something we use in a lot of our

54:55systems. um we haven't had access to it

54:57in uh Flock which is our particular

55:00vendor for LTR and so what that means is

55:03then they will have to log in using

55:05their current ACC gov credentials and

55:09then our it has more direct control of

55:11access over those credentials and the

55:14login and all that and then also uh

55:17taking that back and deactivating

55:19accounts goes through our standard IT

55:21process as well

55:25Um, one thing that we had sort of

55:27flagged from the first two quarterly

55:28reports that were provided to us last

55:30time, uh, and I appreciated that very

55:33much was there still seem to be, uh, a

55:36capability for anyone accessing the

55:38system to,

55:40uh, to acquire that access or to sort of

55:43perform whatever investigation they were

55:45doing without

55:47attaching it to an ongoing law

55:48enforcement incident number or

55:50investigation number or what whatever

55:53indicates you know, the legitimacy of

55:56the search essentially connecting it to

55:57an ongoing criminal investigation. Um,

56:01is that is that something that's going

56:02to be required going forward that there

56:04always be some kind of identifier noting

56:07the the the relevance or investigational

56:11use of that particular search? Yes. Or

56:14Okay. All right. So, that change is

56:15being made.

56:16>> Well, it's already been made and it's

56:17and it's a it's required in the system

56:21itself. So you have to input the

56:22information before you can even perform

56:24a search. That's actually something in

56:27particular with the the alerts in the

56:30system. That was not something we could

56:33even technically require. It was just a

56:34field that existed and we had

56:37specifically asked uh Flock about that

56:39and they made that change within a

56:41couple weeks. They gave us the ability

56:42in the system to mandate that field is

56:46filled out before you can even conduct

56:48an alert search.

56:50Y

56:51>> are you going to be at the community

56:53event on Monday that is about I think

56:56state representative is having a

56:58question about fly

56:59>> the town hall at student. Yes, I'm

57:01planning to be there.

57:02>> Okay.

57:04>> Should do we need to make sure we don't

57:05have a quorum because I was also

57:06planning to attend.

57:08>> We'll have to coordinate that.

57:10>> I mean if we know of at least five of

57:12you that are coming for sure we need to

57:15know that.

57:16>> So

57:16>> it just didn't even occur to me until

57:17right now.

57:18>> Yeah. [laughter]

57:19Anybody else besides

57:23>> I think it's five or six.

57:27>> I may be there.

57:31>> So maximum three

57:33>> or four gonna try to go.

57:36>> That's one, two, three, four.

57:39[clears throat]

57:41>> And so I I guess I want to make sure the

57:44the changes announced by Chief Salter in

57:46the in the exe in his executive order.

57:48Are those permanent or are they

57:50temporary?

57:51>> I can't say they're permanent because,

57:53you know, we may make additional changes

57:55at some point.

57:56>> They haven't been incorporated into

57:58policy on the current policy page.

58:00They're just a standing memo of of

58:03current guidance,

58:04>> right? Yeah.

58:05>> Yes. They haven't. So, we are actually

58:07working on some policy changes, but

58:09>> the policy that existed prior to that is

58:11still in effect at this point. However,

58:14everything in there supersedes the

58:16policy.

58:17>> Okay. Uh so effectively that that is the

58:20policy at this point,

58:21>> right?

58:21>> Until the updates happen, that'll be the

58:23current like that is the policy until

58:25updates occur.

58:26>> That's right. Yeah.

58:27>> Okay.

58:30>> Saturday,

58:32>> Monday.

58:32>> Monday.

58:33>> There's a there's a town hall.

58:34>> Where is it?

58:35>> Uh Cena Theater just

58:37>> I think I saw that in the flag.

58:39>> Yeah, that's the state representative.

58:40Yeah.

58:41>> Well, for my part, I feel like we've we

58:45can't go into the incident itself.

58:46ongoing criminal matter

58:48>> and also there's not really much to be

58:49said. We asked about policies they were

58:52provided and then you know we found out

58:54about incidents predating the policies

58:56that were actually in place. So we'll

58:58wait to see how this unfolds. Um I do

59:00want to note for the record that in the

59:02time since we last met uh the UG police

59:05department has also uh had a reported

59:08abuse of their system by an employee and

59:10had to demote that employee. U although

59:13apparently it was not a violation of

59:14criminal law. Um, just want to observe

59:17there's been a second incident in this

59:19community. Just not one that is under

59:22our jurisdiction.

59:23>> Absolutely.

59:24>> But that's all I have on that particular

59:26matter. If anybody else has

59:27anythingotion,

59:32>> they were suspended without pay and

59:34demoted.

59:35>> That's all I know.

59:37>> But apparently whatever they did not

59:39rise to the level of criminal

59:41culpability. So they have not been

59:42charged or fired or fired.

59:46Yeah, I I agree with Emil unless anyone

59:49has other particular comments. I think

59:50we've addressed this pretty

59:52significantly and I also think

59:55>> I have two questions uh to follow up on

59:58an email from August 28th. Um

1:00:02>> I have had members of the community

1:00:04reach out to me and ask how they would

1:00:08find out if they were being stalked by

1:00:10this software. And I don't know what to

1:00:13tell them. How how would they find out?

1:00:18Like if someone was stalking them

1:00:19through this, how would you know?

1:00:21>> Are you asking me that question?

1:00:23>> I'm asking the worlds. I asked on August

1:00:2528th, but I did help with that.

1:00:28>> How would they find out if they're being

1:00:30stalked by the software? Al if someone

1:00:32is improperly using the software to

1:00:35follow whoever romantic partner business

1:00:39you know rival whatever the person

1:00:41whatever the reason like what are the

1:00:44tools available to a citizen to a

1:00:47community member to

1:00:50other than reporting I guess like the

1:00:52person's wife did or ex-wife did is that

1:00:54their only avenue that you know of

1:00:57currently available to them to say like

1:00:58hey I have a suspicion that I'm be

1:01:02improperly followed. You know, I keep

1:01:05running into the same person who has

1:01:06access to the software everywhere I go.

1:01:09>> Even if you don't, they exactly like

1:01:12>> how would they feel comfortable that

1:01:14that isn't happening,

1:01:15>> right?

1:01:16>> Well, and not even that like I think

1:01:18it's easy to understand how this would

1:01:19happen in like a personal and

1:01:22interpersonal relationship like how we

1:01:24saw here a marriage gone sour, but this

1:01:26is also a question of corporate

1:01:27espionage and religious freedom. Um,

1:01:32there are many ways to follow a person

1:01:34and to create logs on a person and to

1:01:37violate their rights in in many ways.

1:01:39This is revealing patterns of life,

1:01:42intimate patterns of life. And I just

1:01:44don't know how you would know. Like, how

1:01:46do I know that they're not watching me

1:01:47for being a vocal critic? [snorts]

1:01:52Well, I guess the best thing I could say

1:01:54is if somebody has a suspicion or uh

1:01:58believes that there's a misconduct issue

1:02:01with one of our officers and they're

1:02:02misusing the system, then they can file

1:02:05a complaint and we would certainly

1:02:07investigate that like any other

1:02:09personnel complaint. Um but you know,

1:02:12barring some specific allegation,

1:02:16um you know, we don't just we're not

1:02:19going to just open up all these random

1:02:20investigations of our officers

1:02:22necessarily. So,

1:02:23>> right.

1:02:24>> Um

1:02:24>> does that make sense why people would be

1:02:26concerned though?

1:02:28>> I'm not sure. I'm not really sure I'm

1:02:29following your exact question. You

1:02:31mentioned corporate espionage and

1:02:34>> it's one use of it.

1:02:35>> Something else.

1:02:36>> Yes.

1:02:36>> I'm not sure I'm following your question

1:02:38really. So

1:02:40in the events of extremist behavior

1:02:44against people of certain religions, you

1:02:46could find out where that person goes to

1:02:48worship just by watching their car.

1:02:52>> Well, not not so these LPR cameras um

1:02:56they're not video cameras. They're just

1:02:58a they take a snapshot of a vehicle when

1:03:01it passes.

1:03:02>> A snapshot of

1:03:03>> um and so like our cameras are on public

1:03:05streets. Uh, so it's not tracking that

1:03:08you went to church today or it's not

1:03:10tracking that you went to the store

1:03:11necessarily.

1:03:12>> Well, it's a snapshot of a video that

1:03:14the camera takes. So, it is taking a

1:03:16video, but also when you type in that

1:03:19person's license plate, it can make a

1:03:21map there. The cameras are so dense that

1:03:24when you have when it shows the hits on

1:03:26a 2D map, you can see a web of all the

1:03:29traffic of everywhere they went because

1:03:32the camera density is so high. Um, so I

1:03:34I can't speak for other places. I can

1:03:36tell you that we have 33, our police

1:03:39department has 33 cameras across the

1:03:41county. Um, there are other cameras

1:03:43owned by others in the county. Uh, but

1:03:46um, you can certainly do that, but what

1:03:49like you could search multiple cameras

1:03:51and you could develop some idea of

1:03:53movement of somebody, but

1:03:55>> that that's the purpose of the software.

1:03:57>> Well, sort of. Um, but in order to do

1:04:01that, you have to have a legitimate law

1:04:02enforcement reason and investigation.

1:04:04You're investigating a crime, a specific

1:04:06crime.

1:04:06>> I'm not sure that that's true, or else

1:04:09the individual who was fired would not

1:04:11have been able to do what they did.

1:04:14>> Well, so that'd be no different than uh

1:04:17>> breaking another law and accessing

1:04:19another system in properly. And so if

1:04:22somebody does that, then you know,

1:04:25they'd be violating our policies. They

1:04:27broke the law. several things.

1:04:28Obviously, they were held accountable.

1:04:30>> Certainly, and and even if that was not

1:04:32the case, they would be morally in the

1:04:34wrong. What I'm asking is how would a

1:04:36citizen know that that was being done to

1:04:38them?

1:04:43>> I guess that you would have if you felt

1:04:45like something was happening, you file a

1:04:46complaint with us.

1:04:48>> What if you don't feel like anything is

1:04:49happening, but you can't prove that it's

1:04:51not?

1:04:53>> I'm not really sure what you're saying.

1:04:55>> I am. And

1:04:58>> are you saying like essentially do an

1:04:59open records request for whether or not

1:05:01your specific license plate has ever

1:05:03been searched for?

1:05:04>> Maybe that might work,

1:05:06>> but I I don't know how

1:05:09because if some if if the party in

1:05:11question was committed enough to making

1:05:14sure that

1:05:15that citizen didn't find out, then you

1:05:19could say they were a criminal and open

1:05:21investigation and make it not subject to

1:05:22open records. That's a dramatic example,

1:05:25but I can see it happening in the cases

1:05:27of any kind of political repression or

1:05:31similar avenues.

1:05:38The open records is another thing. So,

1:05:41um, you know, outside of a formal

1:05:43complaint, people can always file open

1:05:44records requests and we produce what

1:05:47records are supposed to be produced by

1:05:49law,

1:05:49>> right? Um, so that's

1:05:51>> but with an intimate understanding of

1:05:52what is redactable in open records.

1:05:54>> Sure. There is stuff that is redacted in

1:05:56open records, right?

1:05:58>> Yeah.

1:06:01I'm just rolling things over because

1:06:04there is um

1:06:0633512

1:06:11>> 35122

1:06:13law records

1:06:16>> um which which exempts from disclosure

1:06:21>> ongoing criminal investigation.

1:06:23>> Well, no no that's title 50

1:06:25>> that's 50 1872 A4.

1:06:27>> I cite that occasionally. [laughter]

1:06:30Um

1:06:31>> it's why we asked but uh but 35112

1:06:36specifically exempts data that is

1:06:38recorded uh or I forget that specific

1:06:42>> captured by or derived from an LPR

1:06:44system or any other source. That's

1:06:46what's referring to. So I'm just think

1:06:48I'm just thinking

1:06:50spitballing.

1:06:52>> It's OCGA 35122.

1:06:54Anybody's interested in looking at

1:06:56>> I think subsection F is the one that

1:06:58specifically exempts the language. And

1:07:00then uh there's the definition section

1:07:05of that. Um it's a different number, but

1:07:08um

1:07:10I'm just spitballing open records

1:07:11request wise. If someone were to say,

1:07:13you know, my license plate is ABC123.

1:07:16has it ever been searched? That wouldn't

1:07:18necessarily be

1:07:21record like data that's recorded by the

1:07:23system. It's data that would be entered

1:07:27by someone looking through the system. I

1:07:29don't know.

1:07:30>> I don't

1:07:31>> I could talk with with police open

1:07:32records about that.

1:07:33>> I don't know if it's a concern that

1:07:35really we can address here either. I

1:07:37don't think it's fair to anyone in this

1:07:38room to to answer the question directly,

1:07:40but I think the concern is the density

1:07:44of cameras. There's 33 that are owned by

1:07:46the ACCPD, but there's over a hundred

1:07:48others in the county that are tied into

1:07:51the same system that we pay subscription

1:07:54fees to be able to access to put in a

1:07:56plate and get information. And Flock

1:07:58Safety has, you know, heat maps. I

1:08:01forget what they call it that's not a

1:08:02heat map, but they can show where that

1:08:03plate has shown up against their network

1:08:06in the past period of time, the 30-day

1:08:07retention period, whatever. Um, so to

1:08:10Felix's point, it can map these are the

1:08:13places where that car has been in the

1:08:14last period of time, which creates

1:08:16patterns of life. And I think that the

1:08:17overall

1:08:19density of data about any given person's

1:08:22traveling is unprecedented. And a lot of

1:08:25our current laws and assumptions based

1:08:28on not having a right to privacy in

1:08:31public were not based on this kind of

1:08:34technology existing. When you have to

1:08:36pay a police officer or a PI or whoever

1:08:40else to sit on a corner and write down

1:08:42every PL car that goes past, there is a

1:08:44natural limit to the amount of

1:08:46information that can be gathered just

1:08:48based on resources and time in the day.

1:08:50When cameras are capturing every single

1:08:52vehicle that goes past 247 all the time

1:08:54and archiving it in a database, that

1:08:56completely changes the game. And I think

1:08:58to your point, like yes, someone abusing

1:09:00the system would be violating the law.

1:09:02they'd be violating your policies and

1:09:04these audits will catch some of that

1:09:07but it's after the fact and sometimes

1:09:08the damage might already be done

1:09:10>> and my point is it inevitably cannot

1:09:12catch all of it

1:09:12>> right it can't catch it all of it and it

1:09:14can't catch it in real time it'll only

1:09:16catch it after it's occurred so that's I

1:09:18think the overall concern that I I don't

1:09:20think that we're equipped in this board

1:09:22or the people attending can necessarily

1:09:25address or give us an answer that people

1:09:29are happy with but I think that is the

1:09:30concern

1:09:31>> well if I can't recommend a policy on

1:09:33how people should find out then like

1:09:35that that does affect what I

1:09:39because at this point

1:09:42I would love to be able to reassure

1:09:45anyone

1:09:47that they're not being tracked in some

1:09:49kind of duplicitous way but I'm not able

1:09:52to do that and that doesn't garner

1:09:55trust.

1:10:09Well, um

1:10:11I think we'll be attending at least a

1:10:13few of us will be attending on Monday

1:10:15night to hear what additional

1:10:16information

1:10:18get a sense of what the broader product

1:10:19community thinks outside of this room.

1:10:21>> Yeah, absolutely. But it continues to be

1:10:24and to your point there could be policy

1:10:26recommendations made about various

1:10:28aspects of this. But

1:10:30what ultimately we don't have control

1:10:32over is whether or not the county uses

1:10:34the system which is a broader question

1:10:37or

1:10:38>> commission and which I anticipate being

1:10:40a contentious discussion going forward.

1:10:44Is there a way in terms of contract

1:10:48procurement for people of Athens, Clark

1:10:52County to have any influence on whether

1:10:54or not um

1:10:56not just ACPD, although that's what

1:10:59applies to our board, but any government

1:11:01agency has a contract with flock. So

1:11:03like there's flux cameras outside the

1:11:05parks as well. I've had people ask me

1:11:08what are the procurement policies like

1:11:10can't can we affect change?

1:11:14>> I mean

1:11:17the way that a citizen would otherwise

1:11:19affect change is when a contract comes

1:11:21up before the commission for a vote.

1:11:24That would be the time to voice your

1:11:25opinion on it. But as far as internally

1:11:29with advertising and writing the RFP,

1:11:31no, that would be a staff thing that I

1:11:35mean to their credit has to follow the

1:11:37law and procurement policies. I mean the

1:11:40thing that you'd have to keep in mind is

1:11:43it's not to say you have to go with a

1:11:45specific vendor. That is a choice that

1:11:47is made by the elected body as to which

1:11:50specific vendor they go with. Um,

1:11:54and usually when we put out an RFP, for

1:11:57example, we'll get however many

1:11:59responses from different companies, but

1:12:02we also can't exclude a specific

1:12:05company. It that would violate

1:12:08um their rights to be able to at least

1:12:10apply for a government contract. It

1:12:12doesn't guarantee them one, but at the

1:12:14same time, you can't exclude them from

1:12:16it.

1:12:16>> Does,

1:12:18this is my ignorance on the whole

1:12:20procurement process. Does the mayor and

1:12:21commission have to approve every

1:12:23government contract of all the subd

1:12:25departments or is there discretionary?

1:12:27>> There is.

1:12:27>> Yeah,

1:12:27>> it's usually up to a certain

1:12:29>> at a certain level the department

1:12:31>> $200,000

1:12:32more um

1:12:34>> requires mayor and commission approval.

1:12:36Anything under that requires the

1:12:37manager's office.

1:12:38>> Okay. It's interesting because in 2025

1:12:41when Hamby put forth that budget on the

1:12:44last day of the last budget meeting like

1:12:46that morning that's when they introduced

1:12:48the funding for the real time crime

1:12:49center which was like almost $600,000.

1:12:53I was upset because how are you going to

1:12:56mount a response to that? So

1:12:59>> understood.

1:13:00>> Yeah.

1:13:04>> Yeah. I think that um there's at least

1:13:06people um I'll whoever's there make sure

1:13:10that a fifth person isn't there and

1:13:12someone can someone can take a short

1:13:13straw and decide to leave.

1:13:15>> Yeah. If for some reason somebody

1:13:16changed their mind and there is a fifth

1:13:18person here that hasn't raised their

1:13:20hand yet.

1:13:20>> Yeah.

1:13:21>> Please let us know either on Friday or

1:13:23really early on Monday because we got to

1:13:24get it on the website.

1:13:26>> I will say like if I'm there and I'm the

1:13:28fifth person, I will

1:13:29>> take the short straw to make sure that

1:13:31we're not in violation of any um

1:13:33meetings with department. I can go.

1:13:35>> Right. [laughter] Exactly.

1:13:35>> We'll handle it.

1:13:36>> I'm interested in going, but if it turns

1:13:38out that we would have a forum and would

1:13:40have problems, I'll make sure that we're

1:13:44>> uh Okay, new business. And we can roll

1:13:48that into I don't have any new business

1:13:49from the board that I'm aware of. So, I

1:13:52guess we'll roll that into the update as

1:13:54well.

1:13:54>> Yeah. Real quick, I just want to say

1:13:56thank you to Tori for uh being here. Um

1:13:58welcome. and she's fulfilling the

1:14:02unfinished term of the H Hallstead. So,

1:14:04her term goes through 2029.

1:14:07Um, as a reminder, I think I sent it

1:14:10out, but for anyone interested in going

1:14:14to the police department open house next

1:14:17Tuesday evening, I believe I hope I got

1:14:20that right. Um,

1:14:29There's I think I sent it out, but yes,

1:14:31there is an open house for PD. Again, if

1:14:33for some reason there's five of you that

1:14:36want to go at the same time, let us

1:14:37know. But otherwise, you know, anyone's

1:14:40welcome to do that as well. And I don't

1:14:42think there's pre-signup or anything

1:14:43like that. So, um, don't quote me on

1:14:46next Tuesday. notes.

1:14:49>> Um, and that is all I had other than our

1:14:53next meeting is scheduled for October

1:14:5628th.

1:14:57>> Yep. And, uh, I will coordinate with you

1:15:00the week prior of the fall festival to

1:15:02pick up the stuff.

1:15:03>> Okay.

1:15:04>> Tuesday.

1:15:04>> Yes. Tuesday.

1:15:06>> Next Tuesday at 5 o'clock is the open

1:15:08house at PD headquarters.

1:15:13>> All right. And that's not a program that

1:15:14starts at 5, right? It's just I think

1:15:16it's just now in

1:15:20>> one miss. We will be taking people to

1:15:22the RTCC. I'm sure you can come have a

1:15:25look at it.

1:15:30>> All right.

1:15:32>> I just wanted to say that I spent two

1:15:34hours with uh Chief Pen.

1:15:37>> Okay.

1:15:37>> From the probation department.

1:15:39>> Okay.

1:15:39>> And uh it was uh it was very

1:15:42informative.

1:15:44>> Good. And I think it would be worthwhile

1:15:47if any other board members wanted to

1:15:50take that tour with him. And he said he

1:15:52would be willing to do it as a group or

1:15:55as individuals like he did with me.

1:15:57>> Okay. Thank you. Appreciate that. Good.

1:16:05>> I have a motion for

1:16:10>> Yes.

1:16:11>> Motion to

1:16:13second. Second. All in favor?

1:16:15>> I.

1:16:18>> Thanks everybody.