Protesters gather to march in Wauwatosa alongside the families of Antonio Gonzales, Jay Anderson Jr., and Alvin Cole in 2020. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Update: Rep. Shae Sortwell issued a statement Wednesday morning disputing claims from Democratic Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell that the riot bill was taken off the Assembly’s executive agenda. Sortwell accused Clancy and Hysell of “spreading misinformation” regarding the bill.

“To be clear, the chair never pulled the bill because he has not officially scheduled a vote on it yet after receiving a hearing two weeks ago. I am in discussions with colleagues on the committee, which is standard practice for bill authors after a public hearing. I ask both Democrat representatives to brush up on legislative policy on how bills actually move.”

Wednesday afternoon Rep. Ron Tusler, who chairs the assembly committee, which held public hearings on the riot bill, wrote in an email statement to Wisconsin Examiner that the riot bill needs work before it can be scheduled.

Tusler wrote that the bill “is not on the agenda because, in its current form, it fails to be good legislation. I wanted to give the bill author a chance to explain the bill out of respect for Representative Sortwell and the victims of riots. But in its current form, this bill has constitutional, common-sense, and enforcement issues. Assembly Bill 88, as it exists now, was never going to be scheduled for an executive session until those problems were/are addressed.”

A Republican-sponsored bill that would have defined a riot as a gathering of at least three people that could pose a threat of property damage or injury has been removed from the Assembly Judiciary Committee’s executive session agenda. The bill has been criticized for being overly broad, and potentially chilling First Amendment protections of protest and free speech. Besides defining a riot, the bill also exposed accused rioters and riot organizers to felony charges and civil liability including restitution for attorneys’ fees and property damage, and carried a prohibition on government officials with authority over law enforcement from limiting an agency’s response to quell unrest. 

Rep. Andrew Hysell (D- Sun Prairie), a member of the Assembly Committee on Judiciary, said that he criticized the bill because it “actually weakens existing law for the very people it was supposed to help.” The committee held a public hearing on the bill on May 7, at which  a large number of Wisconsinites voiced opposition to the bill. Rep. Shae Sortwell (R- Two Rivers), one of the bill’s authors, testified in favor of the bill, saying that it’s needed to prevent protests from spinning out of control into riots, property destruction, and injury. Sortwell and other republican supporters of the bill referenced protests and unrest in 2020 in Kenosha and  Madison. 

Among those who testified against the bill was Rep. Ryan Clancy (D-Milwaukee). Like other critics, Clancy said the bill was written vaguely in order to be applied broadly to crack down on protest movements. “While myself and many of my Democratic colleagues are tired of wasting our time and our constituents’ resources on badly written, unconstitutional bills like AB-88, I’m ecstatic that Republicans have abandoned this one for now,” Clancy said in a statement after the bill was shelved by the Assembly committee. “It’s clear that passionate, thoughtful testimony from the public, free speech advocates and civil rights experts – along with excellent technical critiques from Rep. Andrew Hysell – has stopped this so-called ‘anti-riot’ bill dead in its tracks.”

Clancy added that “in reality, however, this isn’t an ‘anti-riot’ bill: it’s a threat to free speech, expression and assembly disguised as a public safety measure. Thankfully, it’s now unlikely to move forward this session.” 

During the May 7 committee hearing where people spoke either in favor of or against the bill, one person wore a hat which used an expletive to denounce President Donald Trump. Committee Chair Ron Tusler (R- Harrison) demanded that the man remove the hat because it was offensive. Tusler threatened to have law enforcement remove the man, and called the hearing into recess. Later, when the hearing continued, the man was allowed to continue wearing the hat. Clancy told  Tusler his emotional reaction to the hat and his impulse to call for police was an example of how a broad, penalty-heavy bill for protests like AB-88 is a bad idea.

In his statement, Clancy urged his colleagues to spend “less time trying to dismantle our rights and getting angry at rude hats” and more time “addressing the actual needs of Wisconsin residents. Until that changes, we must all remain vigilant to fight back their next, terrible idea.” 

This article has been updated to add a statement from Rep. Shae Sortwell accusing Reps Ryan Clancy and Andrew Hysell of spreading misinformation about why the bill was taken off the executive session agenda. The article was updated again Wednesday afternoon with Committee Chair Rep. Ron Tusler’s statement regarding the riot bill. It has also been edited to correct Rep. Ron Tusler’s last name. 

Protesters gather in Kenosha the second night of protests on August 24th, 2020. This was before the clashes with police later that night. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Imagine you hear about a protest in your community and,  curious, you join your neighbors who are marching in the street. Although the protest is loud and slows down  traffic, it appears peaceful and non-violent. Then suddenly, someone throws a rock or spray-paints a building, and now you find yourself among those apprehended for felony rioting, regardless of whether you committed an act of vandalism or  know who did.

Civil rights advocates fear such a scenario if under a Republican bill that defines a riot as a public disturbance, an act of violence or a “clear and present danger” of property destruction or personal injury involving at least three people. A similar bill was introduced in 2017 by Rep. John Spiros (R-Marshfield). A new version is  (AB-88), authored by Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) and Sen. Dan Feyen (R- Fond du Lac). 

People who say their property was damaged or vandalized during what the bill defines as a “riot” would also be able to seek civil damages from people or organizations that “provided material support or resources with the intent that such support or resources would be used to perpetrate the offense,” under the bill. It also prohibits government officials with direct authority over law enforcement agencies from limiting or restricting those agencies’ ability to quell vandalism or rioting, as defined by the bill.

Jon McCray Jones, a policy analyst at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Wisconsin is concerned that the bill’s definition of a “riot” is too vague. “Using that definition, a riot could be three teenagers driving around in a car knocking off mail boxes,” McCray Jones told Wisconsin Examiner. “Technically, with this definition, a riot could be a food fight.” The bill’s language concerning people who “urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate others to commit a riot” is also vague according to McCray Jones, who says this aspect of the bill would open protest leaders and organizers up to criminal and civil liability, regardless of their involvement in rioting.

Sortwell and Feyen did not respond to requests for comment for this story. In written testimony before the Assembly Committee on Judiciary on May 7, both lawmakers said that riots have become more common in recent years. “We saw the destructive riots a few years ago in several metropolitan areas, including right here in Madison and Kenosha,” said Sortwell, referring to George Floyd-inspired protests and unrest in 2020. “Taking a walk down State Street, one would see busted doors and windows of businesses, products stolen, and a smashed statue of a Civil War hero. Several business owners, employees, and citizens had their lives upended.”

Feyen said that “peaceful protests are a cornerstone of our public discourse and will always be protected under the First Amendment, but a line needs to be drawn when those protests go from being peaceful to being destructive and violent.” Although the bill does not  mention specific protests, Feyen wrote, “stricter penalties are needed to deter protesters from crossing that line from protest to property destruction, vandalism, arson, and physical violence.” 

Although scenes of burning buildings and looted stores received a lot of news coverage in 2020, studies suggest that at least 96% of Black Lives Matter protests during the movement’s peak in May and June of 2020 were peaceful. Reports by TMJ4 found that 74.3% of the nearly 200 people who’d been placed on an intelligence list by police in Milwaukee county that year had never been charged with a misdemeanor or felony. Some reports, however, using data derived from insurance claims, estimate that as much as $2 billion in damage nationally occurred due to protests in 2020. 

Some residents of Kenosha – a city referenced by the bill’s authors – recall how months of non-violent protest in Kenosha after Floyd’s death were overshadowed by the unrest that  occurred in August 2020. The shooting of Jacob Blake by Kenosha officer Rusten Sheskey, which paralyzed Blake, led to days of protest and unrest, millions of dollars worth of property destruction, and ended when  then-17-year-old Kyle Rittenhouse fatally shot two people and wounded another, in what a jury later ruled was an act of self-defense. 

During committee hearings on May 7, Sortwell said that the bill seeks to punish not only people who commit vandalism but also “those people who put together the riot.”

Several groups have either lobbied or spoken out against the bill. The Wisconsin Civil Justice Council submitted written testimony opposing the bill on the behalf of “16 business associations working together on civil liability matters.” The council said that the bill would allow for civil compensation for emotional distress stemming from property destruction, noting that emotional damages are generally limited. AB-88 would also allow for any civil compensation to include attorneys’ fees, which would be another departure from current law, the council wrote. Others spoke against the bill in person on May 7, pointing to the bill’s broad language and the chilling effect it could have on political movements. 

“This bill is just a blatant attempt to stop people from protesting,” said McCray Jones. “This is a way to silence organizers from fighting for political change and threatening the status quo in power.” Organizers could potentially be sued for anything that happens at a protest, or even just for transporting someone to a protest that later turns into a riot, as defined under the bill. 

What counts as urging or promoting a riot is broad enough to include common protest chants, like “no justice, no peace,” McCray Jones said. “And if you have ambitious or politically motivated district attorneys…politically motivated prosecutors, the vagueness of this bill could be weaponized … free speech now gets criminally turned into inciting a riot.” 

McCray Jones added that he wonders what a police figure like former Milwaukee PD Chief Harold Breier — notorious for targeting and surveilling Black, brown and LGBTQ communities — would have been able to accomplish had such a law been at his disposal. 

As police departments develop their social media surveillance capabilities, it’s possible under the bill that making posts encouraging people to attend a protest could be seen as an attempt to “urge, promote, organize, encourage, or instigate” a riot under the bill. After the protests of 2020, some agencies that monitored protesters enacted new intelligence-gathering policies to help prevent broad, ideology-based surveillance.  

“I think that right now this moment gives us a very opportune chance to highlight the importance of protecting the privacy of protesters here in Wisconsin,” McCray Jones told Wisconsin Examiner. McCray Jones said he hopes debate about the bill  will become “a jumping off point to talk about not just data privacy for protesters, not just privacy from law enforcement for marginalized communities, but what does it look like to re-think our position on surveillance in the midst of this regime in D.C. that is blatantly ignoring due process, the rule of law, and civil rights.” 

The decision to mandate video cameras and monitors on school buses to allow improved detection of students at stops, effective November 2027, dates back to a 2020 Transport Canada’s Task Force on School Bus Safety. And while the so-called perimeter visibility systems are expected to improve school bus safety, questions remain.

Patricia Turner, territory manager for school bus video manufacturer Gatekeeper-Systems, was a member of the Task Force created by the Council of Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety. The goal was to review safety standards and operations inside and outside school buses.

Additional members included different levels of government, manufacturers, school boards, bus operators, labor unions and safety associations.

“We all came together to discuss what could be put on school buses to assist in keeping children safer,” she said, adding that the Task Force began with bi-weekly virtual meetings that turned into monthly meetings. “We were discussing what technology is out there that can help keep children safe.”

By February 2020, the Task Force released a report, Strengthening School Bus Safety in Canada, that identified four ways to improve school bus safety: Infraction cameras, extended stop signal arms, exterior 360 cameras, and automatic emergency braking.

While the Task Force report did not recommend three-point seatbelts, it recognized “that seatbelts can provide an additional layer of safety on school buses in certain rare but severe collision scenarios,” the report states. “As such, it would be prudent to continue working through the considerations associated with seatbelt installation and use (e.g. consequences of misuse, emergency evacuations, liability) and to encourage manufacturers to develop additional occupant protection features to complement the school bus design, such as energy-absorbing side structure padding and inflatable ‘curtain’ airbags.”

Turner explained that the Task Force selected Gatekeeper as a pilot project supplier for testing perimeter visibility systems initiative in April 2021. The company installed 360 Surround Vision and Student Protector systems on school buses in British Columbia and Ontario.

Transport Canada announced Feb. 3 that, “the Government of Canada is mandating perimeter visibility systems as a new feature to improve school bus safety,” a press release states. “These systems help drivers detect children around the bus while it is stopped or traveling slowly.”

The statement continues, “This technology offers enhanced visibility beyond what mirrors alone can provide.”

Starting in November 2027, all new school buses are to be equipped with perimeter visibility systems with the option to install stop-arm infraction cameras. Canada becomes the first country to require new school buses to be fitted with cameras.

Turner explained that Gatekeeper’s 360 Surround Vision System consists of four high-definition, wide-angle external cameras mounted strategically around the school bus—front, back, left and right. These cameras capture and stitch together real-time, panoramic video, giving drivers a comprehensive, live view of the vehicle’s perimeter to eliminate blind spots. While the Transport Canada mandate does not require camera systems to include recording capability, and the cameras would only be viewable for live look-in, Gatekeeper’s system can easily be upgraded to record video footage with Gatekeeper’s Mobile Data Collector (MDC) for easy retrieval and review.

“This will be an aid to the drivers to even going around the corner, making sure that they don’t take the corner too sharply,” she explained. “And [it’s] one more tool to keep them feeling empowered to keep children safer.”

Turner added that school buses are the safest way to transport children to and from school, more so than any other means of transportation. However, she noted that personal vehicles are being equipped with upgraded technology and that same technology should be applied to school buses.

“That is because school buses are built, inside and out, to protect children, noting that while buses, particularly school buses, are among the safest modes of transportation available, there are opportunities for improved safety,” she said.

Related: As Camera Systems Evolve, IT Collaboration Necessary
Related: Rhode Island District Adds School Bus Video to Reduce Illegal Passing
Related: Transportation Technology Super Users Share Benefits of Working with IT Departments
Related: STN EXPO Panel Discusses Trends in School Bus Safety Technology

Yet questions about the requirement remain. Rich Bagdonas, vice president of business development for school bus contractor Switzer-CARTY Transportation Services, said he was “surprised” to hear the mandate when it was announced in February.

“Safety is paramount,” he said. “[Cameras are] a tool, but we can never have an over reliance on technology, because we still need to have the drivers trained very thoroughly. This is something that we will be able to add to enhance safety. But we always have to keep in mind that when we train drivers that we have to always have our eyes open on the road all the time, too. And we cannot just rely on the technology to provide the safest school ride possible.”

He explained that he doesn’t want the cameras to be a distraction to school bus drivers. For example, he fears they will watch the cameras and not the road.

He added that bus operators won’t see the full effect of the systems until September 2028. Currently, Switzer-CARTY does not have any external cameras on its buses but does have internal cameras on about 10 percent of its fleet based on customer specifications.

The company is in the process of testing external camera systems and installing a couple on school buses in anticipation of the new regulation, “just so we have a bit of a bit of an idea of what it is,” Bagdonas said.

Unlike the interior cameras and exterior stop-arm cameras that record footage, he noted the mandated systems will provide live feeds.

Camera Upkeep & Cost 

Bagdonas said there are still questions to be answered on the new regulation. For example, how much will the cameras cost to add to the buses, and what will maintenance of the systems look like, especially in the winter.

“Sometimes you get some dirt on the back of the [cameras], so we’re going to have to monitor and ensure proper maintenance of the camera systems to ensure the technology is working the way it’s intended,” he said. “And then also there’s going to be a cost component. We don’t know what that cost component is, but that cost component is going to be transferred to us in the cost of the bus, and then we’ll have to determine on how we can see about getting some compensation for this safety feature from our customers.”

All camera systems require ongoing maintenance, Turner said. She noted that while there should be a minimum annual inspection to ensure correct positioning and the connections are functional, they will also need to be cleaned, especially during winter months.

She explained that Gatekeeper’s camera systems are specifically designed and tested to perform reliably, even in harsh winter conditions. She recommended that during routine pre-trip inspections, drivers should quickly verify that camera lenses are clear of residue, snow, or dirt and clean them as needed to ensure optimal visibility.

Bagdonas said Switzer-Carty customers are aware of the new mandate and the company is engaging with stakeholders and bus operators on next steps. He added that because the mandate doesn’t take effect for another year and a half, there’s still time to work through the details.

The post Canada Becomes First Country to Mandate External School Bus Surveillance Feeds appeared first on School Transportation News.