AI-generated transcript of Medford City Council Public Health and Community Safety Committee

[Emily Lazzaro]: All right. Is the meeting going on? This is the Public Health and Community Safety Committee meeting for July 15th, 2026 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. Mr. Clerk, can you please call the roll?

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan. Councilor Leming is absent. Councilor Tseng. Present. Vice President Lazzaro.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Present. And that is the full committee. Is that the full committee?

[Rich Eliseo]: No. Councilor Scarpelli is absent.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Okay. So we have three present, two absent, and we have a quorum. So the meeting is called to order. Today's meeting is on Resolution 26-031 offered by Councilor Callahan, a resolution to require law enforcement identification and protect Fourth Amendment rights. My understanding of this resolution is it was brought about because of community suggestions, pressure from our members of our community who were interested in doing everything we can locally to encourage law enforcement officers to be required to not hide their faces and to protect our Fourth Amendment rights as a Medford community. So I will give the floor to Councilor Callahan to explain more about the resolution and where we would like to go from here.

[Anna Callahan]: Thank you. Yes. Just a little bit more context. Thank you for that context. A little bit more is that we did pass a resolution related to constitutional rights already. That was a few months ago. And then I worked with Councilor Tseng and we also went into discussion with the chief of police Buckley. to ensure that this ordinance, which is related to law enforcement identification and masking, to make sure that that lined up with the policies of the Medford Police Department. And I do want to mention that when we first brought this up, it was because Renee Good and Alex Pretty had both recently been killed by ICE. We hoped that we would not see these happening again, but recently, just in the last week, three people have been killed. And I want to mention them, and pardon me if I mispronounce any names, but Lorenzo Salgado Araujo is a 52-year-old man in Houston, Texas, who was shot and killed by an ICE agent during a vehicle stop. He was not the target of the ICE operation. Yoan Sebastian Guerrero in Biddeford, Maine, was a 26-year-old man with a young child. I'm going to give you a little bit of background. I'm going to give you a little bit of history. Many people in our community have reached out to me deeply deeply concerned about how we can protect the people who live here in Medford. So I will go ahead and go over the ordinance itself. It's fairly short. It has two sections.

[Emily Lazzaro]: It's a resolution just sorry for clarification on an ordinance right now. Right.

[Anna Callahan]: This is an ordinance. So if you look at the email from 5-6, from May 6th. That is what I will be going over. If you want me to get on the Zoom and share it over Zoom. It didn't make it into the packet unfortunately. But it was distributed to Councilors in May. We've kind of been waiting for this meeting to come up. Let me go ahead and join the Zoom call because then I can share my screen. Sorry about this. Give me a second.

[Emily Lazzaro]: That's okay.

[Anna Callahan]: I'm sorry. I'm now looking for the Zoom link.

[Emily Lazzaro]: While you're working on that, I will just say briefly that I think it's really important that we We have had a lot of immediate city business that we've had to take care of. We have the budget. We have hiring that we had to make sure happened, but that was time limited. But I think it's important that we not, as a national community, become complacent to continued killings. by law enforcement officers of people who are residing in our country for no good reason, people who are bystanders, people who happen to be in an area. And whatever we can do in our community to protect the people who live here is our obligation. And this does start by people who live here reaching out to us and asking us for help. And there's a reassurance aspect of that, but there's also an obligation. We have a constituent services obligation, and we have a litigation obligation. What's the word I'm looking for? It's not litigation. Legislation. Legislation. There's a legislative obligation because we're responsible for that in this body. And if there is anything, any kind of loose end we can tie up or any loophole we can close that can make it so that it's a little bit harder for people covering their faces and coming into our city and harming the people who live here, we should be doing that. So I'm glad we're taking this opportunity when things are a little bit more quiet, when the budget is done, and when our hiring is complete and when we are moving forward in the city to finish what we started. And Biddeford, Maine is very close to here. Biddeford, Maine is a town I used to visit when I would go with my family to Maine to go to the beach in the summer. And just because it's closer than Texas doesn't mean that the people who get hurt there are any closer than the people that get hurt in Texas, but it does make it feel very real. So it's very upsetting. It's really horrible. We should, you know, people get arrested in Medford, too. They got arrested around the corner from where I live. It's really horrible, and we need to stop.

[Anna Callahan]: So whatever we can do, we're going to keep doing. All right, carry on. Thank you so much. I've now shared this on the screen, so anyone on Zoom or YouTube should be able to read it along with us. I will also, on the same point that you're mentioning, say that But right before we originally began working on this motion, a very good friend of mine from Medford filmed someone being snatched off of his street in Medford by ICE agents. So this is not something that only happens far away, right? This is happening here as well. So I'll just go over this. I won't read every word, but I will kind of go over it broadly. The purpose really is to build public trust, ensuring that they have plausible identification, and that they can be held accountable. And then it has basically two sections. One is about masking. The part that's about masking says that law enforcement shall not wear any mask or personal disguise except for five things, five exceptions. The first is medical grade masks such as N95 masks. The second is part of gear that's necessary to protect our faces from harm only during the performance of tactical operations in which that gear is typically worn. The third is face coverings worn as part of religious beliefs consistent with how they also wear it when outside the performance of their duties. The fourth is face coverings worn for protection against extreme cold weather conditions. And the fifth just says that notwithstanding those any mask worn as defined above or otherwise may only be worn with the approval of the chief of police. And the second part is talking about identification that they shall display on their uniform in such a place as to remain reasonably visible the officer's name or badge number and the name or commonly recognized abbreviation of their employing agency. Then it covers some other items related to these. So when making identification upon arrest, when making an arrest, they shall identify themselves as law enforcement and then state the name of their agency. Supervisory verification upon request by an individual subject to enforcement action. A law enforcement officer shall be able to provide the name or badge number of a supervisor. Specialized unit exemption, and this is just that sometimes there are special units, and those special units may be exempt from these kinds of identifications. You know, we might think about undercover operations. Those do, you know, they do happen, and those are special circumstances. Then we have another section on the duty to verify law enforcement identification. So when a law enforcement officer witnesses or receives a critical report of conduct that appears to constitute a criminal offense within the city of Medford, and such conduct is being carried out by a person purporting to act as law enforcement, the officer shall, where reasonably practicable, request verification of that person's law enforcement identification. And that might include requesting their badge, confirming their identity through dispatch, requesting the presence of a supervising officer. So these are all things when we spoke to the chief of police that you know, my understanding, it was a great conversation, it's very helpful, he said, normally if there are any law enforcement agencies, they already have told the police, and so the police department knows, so they can verify. Should there be anything that is not verified, they always would just ask for, it's a normal thing they would normally do. So we're not asking them to change anything, this is just, normal policy that they already would normally do.

[Emily Lazzaro]: So this is conversation between agencies. So this is if the police department in Medford sees another law enforcement officer and says, can I just verify your identity?

[Anna Callahan]: So the question was this was a thing for asking what we wanted to understand was what would happen if a resident called up 911 and said somebody's getting snatched up off the street and police showed up. What would happen? So that was what we wanted to know. We wanted to know could that resident rely upon our police department to identify, to ensure that that is in fact a law enforcement agency and not some hooligan that is pretending and snatching somebody off the street. And so, you know, the explanation was that yes, that it would be absolutely normal, like probably they would already know about it if it was law enforcement. They probably already know because they were informed. Because sometimes, you know, someone might be being chased by Maldon, and they might drive into Medford, and then they're pursuing them into Medford. And so there's communication between law enforcement agencies. That's quite normal. And, you know, should there ever be an instance where they did not know about a law enforcement agency, then, of course, they would ask for identification. That's just the normal way that it is. So we're not asking them to change anything. We're simply codifying this. And then there's enforcement penalties, violation of the section where we prosecute in the same manner as misdemeanors, in addition or in lieu to any criminal prosecution, the city shall have the power to sue in civil court, just normal stuff, and severability. If any provision is invalidated, then the rest remains. So that's essentially what it is, our goal. And we did work with a number of residents, including people from Medford People Power and, you know, kind of, broad groups, folks from ACLU as well, to come up with the original concepts, and then we spoke with the chief of police. So I do feel that this has been vetted quite well, and I hope that we can pass it. And I don't know if Councilor Tseng, who I think if this had come up, I'm not sure exactly what happened. I did not re-forward the text of this. But I think this as an ordinance would be co-sponsored. If I'm not incorrect, and please, Councilor Tseng, let me know if that is correct. But I believe that we would be co-sponsoring this. So I don't know if Councilor Tseng wants to speak.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Councilor Tseng did raise his hand. Sorry, I'm not super good at

[Justin Tseng]: No, you're all right. I'm unmuted. Can you hear me?

[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes, I can hear you.

[Justin Tseng]: I would love to co-sponsor this. I think I was added on last minute when this was in the regular session. I'm really grateful for Councilor Callahan for doing so much work. I know we've worked on a lot together with residents. We had a meeting with Chief Buckley, as was mentioned. I think we're all on the same page about this. I'm particularly grateful to Councilor Callaghan for reading out the names of those who were killed by ICE. It's something that we should never, never, ever be normalizing in our country and certainly not in our community. And it's sad that we've had to get to this point. It says a lot about the place that we're in And I, look, these are basics. It's what we would always expect of law enforcement. It's what we would always expect of protecting our constitutional rights. It's what we would always expect of democracy. And I'm really optimistic that we can vote this out of committee tonight. It has my full support. For anyone who reads through it, It's really basic. Councilor Callahan just, I think, introduced each part and walk through the ordinance. I have no words but to say that this is just simple work for us. It's the least we should be doing right now.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Thank you. OK. Yes, I appreciate you walking through this. I was surprised that it is actually quite narrow. And I think that that's important to note, that it's for the purposes of our police department in Medford to be able to identify law enforcement officers from other agencies, which is very standard, common practice. And something that is not unreasonable at all. We're not saying, and then the Medford Police Department physically removes the officer from the city limits. You know, that's not, because that's not something, first of all, that the police chief would agree to. I've had a lot of conversations with him about, you know, a federal agency supersedes the local agency. They can't do anything like that. They are kind of hamstrung in a lot of ways. regardless of what they believe to be right and correct, they have to follow the laws as they're set. And in this case, at least we can say with certainty that officers should not be covering their faces and they should be able to provide an identification to another officer. And I think that's basic and simple and realistic to request. Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: I'm on already. Oh, you're still on. I'm also glad you brought that up. I read almost everything. I kind of summarize every paragraph but I did miss one and I want to assure people who maybe are thinking about what you just mentioned that it does very specifically say nothing in this section requires an officer to interfere with or delay an active law, any active law enforcement operation. So it's very clear, nothing in here is requesting that they stop another agency, that they do anything. It is simply saying that. should there be any sort of question, they should be able to help a resident understand whether this is an actual law enforcement person performing a law enforcement act from an actual law enforcement agency. That that is something that they are capable of doing. And in fact, that is what they would normally do.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Because regardless of how we might feel about that act, we as the government and Medford cannot say, you can't enforce the federal laws. in the way that your boss is telling you you have to enforce the federal laws. So we are staying within the confines of our responsibilities here. And it's important that we continue to do that. So within the confines of our capability and authorization, I think this is very fair, personally. Okay. Is there anything else any Councilors have to say on this paper? Seeing none, I will now go to public participation. You can come up to the podium or raise your hand on Zoom and I will alternate. Would you like to speak for public participation? Please. Yeah, you can head up to the microphone. I'll just turn it on.

[SPEAKER_01]: Lou.

[Emily Lazzaro]: State your name and location for the record.

[SPEAKER_01]: My name is Hilah Darcy. I've lived in Medford for a long time and I think this is a great bill but I hate to go on the record saying this but I do not have your face in the Medford Police Department there. I'm really sorry to say that. I think that they have improved markedly and but their communications record, shall we say, is less than stellar, and it's just a concern. It's better than nothing, and I don't mean if the police department. I mean, you know, setting these requirements for them and that they must be notified, I mean, not that we can enforce that. That's my big concern. Nonetheless, I mean, I'm totally for this, but I can see a lot of things getting lost in translation, as it were. And I hope I'm wrong, because we need them for this. So that's all. And I apologize for being negative.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. OK, I will go to Sian on Zoom. I'm asking you to unmute.

[nqVIJ3wsDWg_SPEAKER_30]: Hi, my name is Cyan McDermott. I live on 54 4th Street in Medford. And I just want to say I strongly support this. I appreciate all the thoughts that you and Councilor Callahan have shared and Councilor Tseng as well. And for the record, just in my experience, I have had a couple conversations with Chief Buckley or one meaningful conversation at one of the pride events. And I personally have faith in him, and I feel like he's doing a good job. But support this strongly. Thank you so much for raising it.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Thank you. Are there any other folks on Zoom interested in public participation? OK, I'm asking you to unmute, Andy. Andy, go ahead. You're unmuted, Andy. You can speak now. I'm not hearing you. Are you able to make your comment? OK. Maybe we'll come back. OK. Okay, seeing that concludes public participation, do we have a motion from Councilors? Motion to approve. On the motion of Councilor Callaghan to approve. To approve out of this committee. To move the paper out of committee. Do I have a second? I have one option.

[Justin Tseng]: I second, but there is one more hand raised.

[Emily Lazzaro]: One more what? Sorry.

[Justin Tseng]: Hand raise.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Andrew Castagnetti, I'm going to ask you to unmute by clicking the Ask to Unmute button, and then you get to talk, OK? I'm clicking it now. Now you unmute, and now you make your comment. You ready? Now's your moment. That's it, Andy. That's all I got for you. OK, next time. OK. On the motion of Councilor Callaghan to move the paper out of committee and sent to the regular meeting and seconded by Councilor Tseng Mr. Clerk can you please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Kelly. Yes. Absence Council is saying yes. And vice president was there.

[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes. Three in favor. Two absent. The motion passes. So the paper will move out of committee. We'll have it at a regular meeting and we will debate it there. Thank you so much. Do we have another motion. Motion to adjourn on the motion of Councilor Callahan to adjourn. Seconded by Councilor Tseng. Mr. Clerk can you please call the roll.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Callahan.

[Anna Callahan]: Yes.

[Rich Eliseo]: Councilor Tseng? Yes. Vice President Lazzaro?

[Emily Lazzaro]: Yes. Three in favor, two absent. The motion passes and the meeting is adjourned. Thank you all.