The Wauwatosa Police Department (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

Since 2022, the Wauwatosa Police Department (WPD) has operated under new, very specific guidelines on how intelligence is collected and shared. Developing a policy involved reflection, clarification and modernization for the police department. Prior to its creation, a spokesperson wrote in an emailed statement to Wisconsin Examiner, no formal intelligence gathering policy existed at Tosa PD. 

By establishing clear standards, WPD aims to “bring about an equitable balance between the civil rights and liberties of citizens and the needs of law enforcement to collect and disseminate Criminal Intelligence on the conduct of persons and groups who may be planning, engaged in, or about to be engaged in criminal activity,” the policy states. Versions of the policy, as well as emails detailing its creation, were obtained by Wisconsin Examiner through open records requests.

The eight-page policy defines the difference between “information” and “criminal intelligence,” outlines appropriate channels for sharing that information, and establishes clear boundaries protecting individuals and groups. “Information” is defined as “raw unprocessed data that is unverified and unevaluated,” and only becomes “intelligence” once it’s been “systematically planned, collected, analyzed, and disseminated in an effort to anticipate, prevent, or monitor potential criminal activity for public safety purposes,” according to the policy. 

It stresses that such efforts must meet the threshold of “reasonable suspicion,” where a sworn law enforcement officer or investigator believes there is a “reasonable possibility” that a person or group is involved in “a definable criminal activity or enterprise.” Individuals or groups which become the focus of WPD’s intel-gathering activities must be those suspected of being involved in the planning, financing or organization of criminal acts, those suspected of being involved in criminal acts with “known or suspected crime figures,” or be the victims of those acts. 

The policy highlights that intelligence may not be gathered on individuals or groups based solely on:

• An individual or group’s support of “unpopular causes”
• Any membership of a protected class including race, color, religion, national origin, ancestry, gender, pregnancy status, sexual orientation, gender identity, age, physical or mental disabilities, veteran status, genetic information or citizenship
• Political affiliations
• “Non-criminal personal habits” 

Any information gathered from confidential sources or electronic surveillance devices “shall be performed in a legally acceptable manner and in accordance with procedures,” the policy states. The policy also requires periodic review of intelligence by appropriate WPD staff to ensure the information is accurate, current, and remains relevant to the department’s goals. If it’s not, the policy states, the information should be purged. 

Lessons learned, and a new day

The intelligence policy was created with input from several key personnel within WPD including Lt. Joseph Roy, crime analyst Dominick Ratkowski, and Capt. Shane Wrucke. WPD Chief James MacGillis — who was formerly a Milwaukee PD drug intelligence and High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area (HIDTA) officer — also had input in crafting the policy.

A WPD spokesperson wrote in an email statement that the city’s Police and Fire Commission, which oversees appointments, promotions and discipline of police and fire personnel, was not involved in establishing the policy. In April 2024, Ratkowski shared a final draft of the policy with Robert Bechtold, from the Madison Police Department. “Thanks for the SOP [Standard Operating Procedure],” emailed Bechtold, who was apparently looking for guidance on how to create such a policy. “I’m not looking forward to us building one,” he added. The Madison Police Department didn’t respond to a request for comment. 

Roy, Ratkowski, and Wrucke all have ties to WPD’s investigative division. Roy supervised the division’s dayshift and also serves as commander of the Milwaukee Area Investigative Team (MAIT), which focuses on officer-involved shootings and deaths. Ratkowski has worked at WPD since 2018, and was hired as the department’s first ever civilian crime analyst. Wrucke, like Roy, has past ties to both MAIT and WPD’s Special Operations Group (SOG), which focuses on covert surveillance, accessing phones, and drug investigations.

A WPD spokesperson explained in an email statement that the intel policy was created “to incorporate lessons learned, enhance transparency, and provide clear guidelines for intelligence gathering.” Those lessons likely stemmed from the protests of 2020, and the decisions made by investigators when WPD was still headed by former Chief Barry Weber. 

Following the killing of George Floyd by Minneapolis police officers, marches against police abuse began in Milwaukee and Wauwatosa, where a former police officer had killed three people over a five-year period. Wauwatosa experienced months of daily non-violent protests which occasionally ended in standoffs with officers. In October 2020, Wauwatosa declared a curfew after the district attorney’s office announced that officer Joseph Mensah wouldn’t be charged in his third fatal shooting. Protesters were confronted by riot police, the National Guard and militarized federal law enforcement during the curfew. 

Journalists, protesters and lawyers later learned that WPD had created a list of nearly 200 people during the summer of protest. Ratkowski had called it a “target list” in an email to assisting agencies. WPD publicly stated that the list — which included dozens of protesters, members of the Cole family, their attorneys, elected officials, and the author of this story — included  witnesses, victims and  suspects in possible crimes that occurred at the protests. 

Civil lawsuits revealed more about use of the list under Weber, who retired in 2021. Ratkowski in depositions explained that he began creating the list around June 2020, after Capt. Luke Vetter asked him to begin identifying active participants in the protests. Ratkowski gathered information from confidential law enforcement databases with access to drivers license information, home addresses, arrest records, and more. He combed social media accounts on Facebook and Tinder, sometimes using fake Facebook accounts registered as “confidential informants.”

Simply being tagged in a protest-related social media post could get someone on the list, Ratkowski said in a deposition. He agreed with attorneys when asked whether “mere affiliation with a protest” was enough, and confirmed that threatening violence or committing a crime was not required. Ratkowski said that if a superior asked him to make a list of every member of the Socialist Party he would, “because I would assume that he [Capt. Vetter] would have asked me to do something that wasn’t useless.” The attorney questioning Ratkowski responded, “I’m not asking whether it’s useful or useless, I’m asking whether it’s constitutional or not,” to which Ratkowski replied, “I can’t make that determination.” 

The federal lawsuit eventually went to trial, where a jury ruled that WPD had not violated specific privacy laws related to obtaining and sharing drivers license information. 

In an emailed statement, WPD said that “a key objective” of the new intelligence policy “was to clearly define the distinction between information and intelligence, ensuring officers understand when data becomes actionable. It applies to all WPD staff involved in intelligence creation and upholds protections against intelligence gathering based on legally protected characteristics.” The department added that, “though journalists are not explicitly mentioned, the department remains committed to safeguarding First Amendment rights for all individuals. Above all, the Wauwatosa Police Department prioritizes transparency and strengthening trust within the community.” 

Open records and access to government is important for government transparency and trust. (Photo from www.sunshineweek.org)

A legacy of Wisconsin’s progressive tradition is its strong open records law, which compels the government to conduct its business in full view of the public and respond promptly to citizen demands for records from state agencies, public schools, city halls and police departments.

Just before Sunshine Week, this week’s annual mid-March public education campaign celebrating the importance of open records and freedom of information, the Wisconsin Examiner proudly accepted the 2025 Media Openness Award from the Wisconsin Freedom of Information Council for our reporters’ work forcing police department records into the open. 

Attorney Tom Kamenick, who runs the Wisconsin Transparency Project, the state’s only open records focused law firm, won settlements in two cases, against the city of Black River Falls and the Wauwatosa Police Department, and both government entities changed their policies so that future public records requests will be met expeditiously and without burdensome fees.

The city of Black River Falls attempted to charge more than $4,000 to fulfill reporter Henry Redman’s request for records regarding the disappearance and death of a Native American man whose family doubted police accounts of his apparent suicide. The family members were told by city staff that city officials advised them to ignore the family’s pleas for more information about their loved one’s death.  

“So when we brought the lawsuit, yes, it was about making the request a little cheaper than $4,400,” Redman said in accepting the award at the March 6 Wisconsin Newspaper Association dinner. “But it was also about changing the system in a small corner of the state, so people in Black River Falls, reporters and citizens alike, can turn a critical eye on their local government officials and help families like my sources get answers.”

Sharing the award was Isiah Holmes who, in a separate lawsuit, sued the Wauwatosa Police Department for failing to respond in a timely manner to his records requests filed in 2020 and 2021, “that the Tosa PD had essentially just decided to just not respond to — to ignore,” Holmes said. 

As part of the settlement, the department released hundreds of emails as well as interrogation video. 

“It’s not just about our requests,” said Holmes. “It’s about anyone who has to go to the Tosa PD, for example, people who may not have the knowledge or resources that we have as journalists. And actually, it’s kind of an act of bravery, depending upon what agency you’re dealing with, to go up and even ask for records.” Hopefully, he added, “we helped make that process a little bit easier for people.”

Sunshine Week had its beginnings shortly after 9/11 when, in the name of national security, the government began to make all kinds of previously available information secret. 

Tim Franklin, the editor of the Orlando Sentinel, noticed that data and information that was once readily available was disappearing from government websites. “Suddenly, we’re seeing government secrecy at an all-time high,” Franklin is quoted as saying on the official Sunshine Week website. “It was becoming an issue that was unchecked because anytime it was questioned, the response was “it’s a matter of national security.’”

Even the Florida state Legislature started passing government secrecy bills at an alarming clip. 

Standing up to that pressure, as a group of journalists and First Amendment advocates in Florida did, is critical to the health of our democracy. But that’s not always clear to the public.

In moments of moral panic, whether over an imaginary communist menace during the McCarthy era or a fictitious “invasion” of violent criminals from other countries in our current moment, people forget that defending free speech, dissent, and public scrutiny of government are essential to our liberty and democracy.

As we enter a dark period in American history, with a president who took office and immediately began flouting the law, ransacking federal agencies, letting an unelected billionaire seize citizens’ private data, deporting people without due process, and promising to use the full force of the federal government to persecute his enemies, we need sunshine on the activities of our elected officials more than ever. 

Thank God for journalists and citizens who are willing to commit those little acts of bravery Holmes describes. Those watchdogs will help see us through to a brighter day. 

Attorneys Nate Cade (far left) and Kimberley Motley (center) stand with the mother of Alvin Cole, Tracy (far right), and other members of Cole's family. (Photo by Isiah Holmes/Wisconsin Examiner)

A civil trial in Milwaukee’s federal courthouse over the fatal shooting of 17-year-old Alvin Cole by former Wauwatosa police officer Joseph Mensah ended in a hung jury on Thursday. After four days of hearing testimony and evidence, the eight-member jury was unable to come to a unanimous decision about whether Mensah used excessive and unreasonable force when he shot Cole on Feb. 2, 2020. 

A new trial has been set for September of this year, with pretrial preparations expected in August. The day began with closing arguments from attorney Nate Cade, who told the mostly white jury of seven women and one man to “remember who’s involved.” Cade showed a picture of Cole to the jury, saying, “He’s a kid, just a kid.”

Cade recounted the four days of testimony, starting with Cole’s father, Albert, who said he will be haunted by the memory of dropping off his son, the last time he saw him, “for the rest of his life.” Cade pointed to conflicting testimony about the shooting among the police officers who were there, and emphasized the testimony of David Shamsi, a combat veteran and FBI agent, who said Cole did not move or point a gun at Mensah before he fired.  

Another officer, Jeffrey Johnson, also testified that he did not see a weapon pointed at Mensah at the time of the shooting, and that Cole was on his hands and knees. Cade said that if Mensah had “paused a moment, Alvin Cole would still be alive.”

Plaintiffs’ attorneys also reminded the jury that after the shooting, Evan Olson, Mensah’s friend on the force, went off with Mensah in a squad car where they had an unrecorded conversation, in violation of polices stating officers should be kept separate after a shooting to avoid statement contamination. 

Cade stressed to the jury that in order for Mensah to be right, “everybody else has to be wrong,” and that Mensah had never apologized on the stand for the shooting.

Attorney Joseph Wirth, representing Mensah, said that night consisted of split second decisions. “Alvin Cole made catastrophically bad decisions,” said Wirth, arguing that Cole brought a gun to the mall, got into a fight, fled from and fired upon police, and then tried to fire again before Mensah killed him. “You can’t bring 20-20 hindsight,” said Wirth, urging the jurors to put themselves in Mensah’s shoes that night. Wirth refuted plaintiffs’ attorneys who said Mensah was bored in his own sector, and wanted some action. Wirth stressed that when an officer perceives danger, he has a duty to act and “it is not necessary [to prove] if this danger actually existed.” 

Wirth argued that Shamsi, who said the gun didn’t move at all, was still prepared to shoot Cole, and that the teen never stopped running, or indicated he wanted to surrender. 

Wirth also said that Cole pointed a gun both at Mensah and Olson, suggesting that the two officers are not contradicting each other. Plaintiffs’ attorneys asked for $22 million in damages, which Wirth called outrageous. 

The jury went into deliberations shortly after noon, and returned around 4:30 p.m. saying they were  unable to come to a decision. They were told by the judge to go back into deliberations until 5 p.m. When they were called back, they had still been unable to reach a unanimous decision. Judge Lynn Adelman said one main issue was the quality of squad car videos. The jury was excused, and a new trial was set for Sept. 8, at 9 a.m.

The day ends with armed marshals, and words from the family 

At the end of the day as the jury returned, at least five U.S. marshals, several of them armed, entered the court room. The arrival of the armed marshals caused a stir  in the courtroom from the gallery to the plaintiffs’ bench and attracted the attention of  Judge Adelman himself. “I don’t want marshals here,” Adelman said. It’s unclear why the marshals were there, but attorney Cade told media and the judge that it was inappropriate, and could send the wrong message to a jury. “People get screened coming into this courthouse,” said Cade. “The family has not shown out…They have not done anything dangerous, they have not made any threats.” 

Tracy Cole, Alvin’s mother, said she was satisfied with the presentation of her family’s case. “I can’t complain,” she said, “they showed the evidence, everything on the table. We ain’t gave up, we’re not going to give up.” Undiscouraged by the hung jury she said, “it just make us fight more.” Cole did say that she was hurt when she wasn’t allowed to testify during the trial. “I thought that if I would’ve spoke on it, I thought it will let some of the relief off of me, but now it haven’t because I still have that pain inside,” said Cole. “It hurts, but I’m dealing with it.”