Police Oversight Commission Discusses Harassment, Trespassing; Interim Police Chief Jen Brown Extends an Olive Branch

There have been tense exchanges between East Lansing Police Department (ELPD) leadership and the city’s police oversight commission recently, but Interim Police Chief Jen Brown extended an olive branch at the oversight commission’s most recent meeting. 

At the East Lansing Independent Police Oversight Commission’s (ELIPOC) March meeting, Brown referred to some members of the commission as “cop haters.” At the April meeting, Brown apologized for her behavior and explained steps she has taken to strengthen relationships with commissioners. 

“My intention was not to offend anyone, but I know that I did, so I want to apologize,” she said. “I was managing some personal challenges and in hindsight, I probably shouldn’t have come to the meeting. I realized I should prioritize my own mental health and well-being over attending a meeting.” 

Brown said she met individually with five commissioners, and those conversations have “reinforced my confidence that we can continue working together to make ELPD the best department in the state.” 

ELPD and ELIPOC leaders have said for years that the relationship between the two bodies should be improved as they work together to strengthen police policies. However, a rift has often been evident at meetings, as the two entities have often been at odds over evaluation of ELPD policies, and ELPD leaders have perceived some feedback from the commission as overly critical of officers’ actions. 

Commission discusses harassment, trespass policies, laws. 

During public comment of the April meeting, First Amendment Auditor Joseph Hill spoke about an incident where he was briefly detained while conducting an audit for his YouTube channel. A First Amendment Audit is when a person films police officers and other government employees to audit their reaction to minor disturbances, ensuring in the process, they say, that constitutional rights are protected.  

The conversation veered to examine local and state laws regarding harassment and trespassing.

In the instance regarding Hill, he was briefly detained after the police were called on him for filming on the public sidewalk near Jolly Pumpkin. He filed a complaint against Sergeant Chad Stemen, Officer Jordyn Willis, and Officer Brennan Surman, who detained Hill for trespassing on Jolly Pumpkin’s property before they conducted an investigation. During the incident, Hill stayed on the public sidewalk and did not enter Jolly Pumpkin.

The officers never asked Hill or the restaurant manager, who initially called the police to have him trespassed, if he had been on the business’ property. When the officers realized Hill hadn’t been on the property, they cited a different violation, harassing patrons. 

“I have been threatened that if I’m caught filming in public again, misdemeanor charges will be sought against me,” Hill said. “Their [officers] lack of knowledge is an embarrassment to the law enforcement profession and specifically to the credibility of the ELPD.” 

Hill’s complaint triggered an internal investigation, and the investigator exonerated the officers by citing a city ordinance that states, “No person, with the intent to harass another person shall engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person, which acts, or conduct serve no legitimate purpose.” 

ELIPOC Vice Chair Kath Edsall said she thinks Hill was protected by the fourth amendment, and that his actions don’t meet the ordinance’s definition. 

“This individual had only been there one time, there is no series of acts,” she said. “Journalism and videotaping are a legitimate purpose, and this would be a second reason that particular code should not apply.”

Edsall proposed the commission pass a motion disagreeing with the investigation outcome: 

“ELIPOC recommends the investigation outcome exonerated be reversed and that the officers involved found to have violated the complainants fourth amendment right to not be detained as he had not, nor was he committing either the crime of trespassing or harassment as defined in the East Lansing city code or Michigan code.”

Commissioner Michael McDaniel, a professor at Cooley Law School, clarified to the commission that harassment under state law does not require a course of conduct, and a single incident could be sufficient.

The discussion shifted to focus on who determines whether the trespass actually happened–the business manager or the officer?

“My concern is the way the Michigan statute is written, if the owner tells someone they cannot come onto their property, and they do, they’ve committed trespassing under Michigan law,” McDaniel said. “I think it’s on the owner of the property to tell the police officer, and I’m not sure the officer has any greater duty under the law, as written for trespass.” 

But Hill had never actually been on Jolly Pumpkin’s property. He was standing on the sidewalk, which is public property. 

“It seems like the officers didn’t want to ask the simple question of what happened,” Commissioner Rasha Thomas said. “They didn’t let the manager tell them what happened. Rather it was, ‘Do you want them trespassed?’” 

McDaniel again highlighted that there is no requirement on the part of the police under the trespass statute to do further investigation. 

“I think we need to change the policy and require more than state law, which does not require a course of conduct for harassment, while the East Lansing city ordinance does,” McDaniel said. “To say that the officer violated his fourth amendment rights, I don’t know that I agree with that based on what little we have.” 

“The policy can be changed, but I would hope that an officer has more common sense, and more pride in their job to [ask],” Thomas said. “Instead of saying because I don’t have to ask a question, that I would ask this question, because I’m going to detain this person.”

Brown cut in to clarify ELPD’s policy. 

“Our policy does not require officers to divulge what crimes they are detaining someone for,” she said. “If they ask, we would say it, but again, they’re not required.” 

Brown also said ELPD is reviewing this policy. She also cleared up ELPD’s policy on trespassing. 

“We will not detain when the sole purpose is a business owner or an individual requesting that the person be trespassed,” she said.

Ultimately, the commission tabled the motion and decided it will revisit this complaint next month. 

ELIPOC opts to have small group review BWC footage, instead of entire commission. 

ELIPOC’s five-member use of force committee will review body-worn camera (BWC) footage of an ELPD officer deploying a taser on a man at a McDonald’s restaurant. The approach of having the subcommittee view the footage instead of the entire commission viewing it at home or with ELPD representatives is a change from past practice. Commissioners hope the change helps increase understanding of what happened during incidents where officers use force. 

“The purpose of viewing the video together is so we can understand the perspective of the ELPD about the decisions police officers made during their interactions with the man, and with this info, we [commissioners] can share our perspectives on the steps in that interaction,” Commissioner Chris Root said. 

The committee and ELPD designee will discuss the legal basis, policy and procedures of the ELPD when they respond to a request from a private business owner or manager when they want to trespass a person on their premises, in this instance.

The committee will then report back to the full commission at the meeting after they review the footage.

ELIPOC Chair Ernest Conerly said commissioners who are not on the use of force committee may want to view the footage, and if more than six commissioners attend the viewing, it would constitute a quorum and require an open meeting be held. 

Edsall asks City Council liaison Councilmember Mark Meadows about a potential workaround.

“We’ve had committees at school board where our quorum would be four, so you have three people on each committee,” she said. “Other board members in the past have attended sitting in the audience, keeping their mouths shut. Is that, in your opinion, a violation of the Open Meeting Act?”

“It’s on the edge,” Meadows responded. “If the committee–which is a large committee of five, just below a quorum–were to ask these questions, you are doing a preliminary discussion, and the whole thing is coming back to ELIPOC, so everyone will have the opportunity to hear everything being done. 

“If someone is sitting in the audience, I think that there’s a potential argument that there was a violation of the Open Meetings Act,” Meadows continued. 

Conerly clarified that he was suggesting that ELIPOC view the footage together as an open meeting. 

“If I’m not there and they’re [the use of force committee] being guided through the video based on what the police officer says, then I’m going to have to rely on hearsay and their recollection,” he said. “It just seems it might be easier if it was a part of the [ELIPOC] meeting.” 

Commissioner Kathy Swedlow said that the use of force committee has been efficient in completing work when they have had smaller meetings to discuss data management. She hopes to replicate that environment and see if the committee can get a better sense of what officers are thinking in confrontational situations. 

“I support the committee’s recommendation,” Commissioner Sharon Hobbes said. “I think it’s hard to get things moving with a committee of the whole; it’s very cumbersome. I think bringing it back to ELIPOC after you have the meeting will give us ample time to respond to things that we may or may not agree with and then tighten it up.” 

Root noted that if individual commissioners have any specific questions they would like answered, they may send them to the committee. 

The commission agreed on the arrangement and decided to try out “this experiment,” as Root framed it.