Commander discusses police policies on Day 5 of Potter trial testimony

4:28 p.m.

Sgt. Mike Peterson

At 3:23 p.m., court reconvenes and Frank continues questioning Peterson. Frank gives Peterson the Taser holster that Potter used and asks him to demonstrate with his Taser how it fits in the holster and is then drawn for the jury. After Peterson does that, Frank highlights a few Taser training PowerPoint slides. Peterson notes he’s volunteered to be shot with a Taser before but only once because it’s not something he wanted to feel again. On one of the slides, Peterson notes there have been reported instances of a Taser causing cardiac failure in subjects. He says the research he’s seen states that’s inconclusive but it’s something officers are aware of and want to try to keep electricity away from a subject’s heart.

Peterson then explains why a Taser’s probes deploy at different angles as he and Frank continue going through the slides. Peterson states it’s recommended that officers try to restrain a subject while a Taser is used to avoid having to deploy the Taser multiple times but notes an officer restraining a subject can be shocked during that process as well. Then state then displays a Taser training lesson plan and several other Taser training documents. Once they get to the Taser 7, Frank asks Peterson to explain the Taser 7 training course officers had to go through. The state then displays the signed form showing Potter completed the course on March 2, 2021.

At 4:04 p.m., they shift to force not specific to Tasers. Frank highlights a portion on stressful situations affecting physical and mental functioning, and Peterson explains how the department fulfills that requirement and "prepare as best as they can for it." The state then displays past Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training sign-in sheets showing Potter completed different training sessions over several years, through October 2020.

Frank then asks if Peterson is aware of any other officers drawing their handgun when they meant to draw a Taser since he’s been at Brooklyn Center Police. He says he’s not aware of any. Frank follows up with if it’s ever happened in the scenario-based training they do and he says he’d have to think hard about it because they run together.

A sidebar is then called and after a couple of minutes, at 4:26 p.m., Chu dismisses jurors for the day. Court will reconvene at 9 a.m. Wednesday.

---

3 p.m.

Sgt. Mike Peterson

At 1:55 p.m., court reconvenes and Brooklyn Center Sgt. Mike Peterson is sworn in. Frank then begins questioning him. They go over Peterson’s background and experiences. He also became an instructor, including for Tasers. Peterson describes how the department puts together use of force training and how the department ensures all officers receive necessary training. He also described how training in the department has changed since he’s been involved and how reality-based training is used. He then goes into how he became a Taser instructor and the department’s Taser training.

While slowly walking through the Taser warnings, Frank highlights one warning to not use a Taser on someon operating or riding in a vehicle. Peterson says that’s correct and continues through the warnings. Frank also asks about spark tests and Peterson confirms the department policy requiring spark tests before every shift. Peterson then explains the department policy to carry a Taser on the opposite side of the firearm to avoid weapon confusion. He notes color, feel and weight as some of the differences between a Taser and firearm. The verbal warnings when using a Taser, Peterson says, are to warn other officers and give the subject officers are deploying a Taser on one last chance to comply. Peterson then explains the differences in how the Taser can be drawn. He also explains the intended effect a Taser is supposed to have on a subject — neuromuscular incapacitation. He says, on the front of a subject, anywhere below the ribcage is where officers are supposed to aim; on the back of a subject, anywhere from the neck down is preferred.

Going back to Taser warnings, Frank notes a slide that says Tasers shouldn’t be used on people who are passively resisting and aren’t an immediate threat. He also displays a picture showing the preferred target zones for Tasers. Frank then asks Peterson to describe how the Taser safety works.

Chu then invites jurors to get up and stretch their legs. After a minute, Frank continues. Peterson explains how the lasers and screen on the Taser turn on. Frank then asks Peterson to stand and walk through a spark test for the jury after Peterson says it’s safe to do in the courtroom. Peterson then does that for the jury, explaining what the screen shows and that the actual test takes five seconds.

Frank then goes through more of the department’s Taser policy, asking just a few simple questions that Peterson replies "correct" to.

At 2:59 p.m., Chu dismisses jurors for a 20-minute afternoon break.

---

12:47 p.m.

Garett Flesland

Court reconvenes at 11:18 a.m. and Frank continues his questioning of Flesland, starting with the department’s policy on officer-involved shootings. They then shift to the department’s field training officer program.

Afterward, Flesland notes Potter was a field training officer on April 11 and had completed basic certification to be a field training officer. Then, they shift to Flesland’s use of a Taser. He says he carries his Taser on his left side, opposite of his firearm on his right side, which is his dominant side. "That’s how the policy has always been and that’s how we’ve always been trained," he says. "When we incorporated the Taser into our repertoire, it gave us, what I believe is a powerful new tool that can allow us more options in a wide variety of situations that hopefully, potentially, are going to minimize any unnecessary violence or injuries," he adds.

Frank asks him about spark testing Tasers. Flesland says he’s familiar with it and there’s no exception, that he’s aware of, to that policy. They then go over all of the Taser certifications Potter obtained, all showing perfect scores, all the way through her last one in March 2021. The state then displays a picture of Potter in 2016 and Flesland explains she’s wearing her Taser in the picture in a reaction draw orientation, meaning it’s on her left side with the handle pointing backward so she can grab it with her left hand. Flesland also stands and explains to jurors the difference between a cross-draw and reaction draw orientation. The state does the same with a few later dates, up to June 2020. They also quickly display a list of all the training sessions Potter has attended since she started at the department.

Gray takes over questioning of Flesland at 12:01 p.m. Flesland says he’s not aware of Potter missing any training sessions throughout her career. He confirms that training sessions are "never exactly" like emergencies in real life. Asked about Potter’s role as a crisis negotiator, Flesland explains that she was selected for it after volunteering and what she did. He does the same with the Domestic Abuse Response Team and the Honor Guard portion of the Law Enforcement Memorial Association. He also confirms Potter was voted to her position by the other officers in the union and explains what that role entails. Flesland adds that he’s not aware that Potter was ever accused of abusing her position or charged with violating department policies, with the exception of a couple car accidents in her first couple of years.

Gray then moves to the policy on moving vehicles and then a situation on stopped vehicles that start to flee. Flesland states, based how Gray outlined what happened on April 11, the officers would be right to stop the vehicle from fleeing but adds he hasn’t investigated the incident. However, based on the video he’s seen, Flesland says he doesn’t believe Gray misstated anything. Flesland also confirms Luckey and Johnson weren’t punished at all for their actions on April 11. Gray then lays out a hypothetical of someone being partially in a vehicle as it flees and the danger it’d pose to that person and Flesland confirms it’s "very likely" that person could be dragged. Gray asks if it’s more difficult to be a police officer now than when Flesland started and he replies he thinks so. He adds that he sees more guns now than in 2000. When asked by Gray, Flesland also confirms someone with a weapons violation would be concerning and that use of force is based on what an officer knows at that moment, without hindsight. He also confirms department policy allows reasonable force to make an arrest. Asked if an officer can use deadly force in a situation resembling Potter’s on April 11, Flesland says "potentially, yes, but I wasn’t there."

"I would be extremely concerned if I was going to arrest someone that had an arrest warrant for some sort of weapons violation," Flesland adds.

When asked about Potter as a police officer, Flesland says, "She’s a good person, she’s a friend. I have no concerns going to calls with her. I had no concerns with her." Frank then interjects and calls for a sidebar. Afterward, Chu says the state’s objection is sustained and tells Flesland to not answer the question but she allows the portion he did answer to stay on the record.

The state also objects twice when Gray asks if Flesland and former chief Gannon went to Potter’s house on April 11 and after Flesland says they did because they’d been told she tried to hurt herself, Chu then sustains the state objections and tells the jury to disregard that comment.

Frank starts asking a few more questions at 12:28 p.m. Flesland confirms potential injury to others and collateral injuries should be a factor officers consider before using force. He also states, "They should use no more (force) than is reasonably necessary to accomplish the task."

When Frank asks if Flesland’s answers to the hypotheticals posed by Gray were solely based on those hypotheticals and not what actually happened on April 11, Gray calls for a brief sidebar. Afterward, Frank asks it again and Flesland says he "was trying my best to answer based on the facts that he’d said." He also confirms he didn’t interview any witnesses, watch all of the videos or review reports of this case. He clarifies that he’s not offering an opinion on Potter’s use of force on April 11 and just answered Gray’s questions based on how he portrayed the events.

Asked further about officer training and working under pressure, Flesland says, "I expect good officers to make good decisions." He adds that officers should consider whether a vehicle that’s not moving could still be put into motion when deciding about using force.

At 12:38 p.m., Gray takes over again. Flesland confirms he’s seen parts of some videos in this case and did previously say he considers Potter a good officer.

Flesland is excused at 12:39 p.m. and Chu dismisses the jury for lunch until 1:45 p.m.

After jurors leave, she and the attorneys have a sidebar until leaving at 12:46 p.m.

---

11 a.m.

Garett Flesland

Brooklyn Center Police Commander Garett Flesland is sworn in and Frank starts questioning him at 9:24 a.m. Flesland says he was in the Navy and ROTC before becoming a police officer. He adds that his father was a police officer and his wife is also an officer. He goes over his training before being hired in Brooklyn Center in 2000 and then explains his duties and experiences after his hiring, from patrol officer to detective to sergeant and his current role. He then explains he’s known Potter since he started at the police department and has briefly been her supervisor for a few periods.

Flesland notes he helped provide some records to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for this case. As a commander, Flesland says he makes sure officers receive the necessary training in the department, although he notes he doesn’t do the actual training. Flesland then goes over how the department implements its policies and says they work with a company — Lexipol — that suggests certain policies and changes to the department but the department ultimately decides what it implements as an actual policy. He then notes he has a copy of Potter’s acknowledgment of new policies.

Frank and Flesland then walk through some parts of Brooklyn Center’s police policy, highlighting some of the wording in the department’s code. On the part about maintaining calm in the face of danger, Flesland says, "It’s a difficult job at times, law enforcement, and we need to continue to strive to be our best." The defense then objects to the state going through the code of ethics line by line and Chu calls for a sidebar. After five minutes, Frank continues questioning Flesland.

"I think police officers have an incredibly important role in society," Flesland says. "Their statutory requirements are statutory limitations. But I think there is a very special social contract that exists between police officers and the community. Police officers are an extremely forward-facing arm of the government. And it’s a special role and relationship we have with society."

Frank moves on to questions about the oath officers take before moving to the attributes the department looks for in recruits. He highlights working under pressure before going over officers’ fitness for duty. Flesland notes the department wants its officers to "be in a good place" at work and says he’s called in sick before "if I didn’t feel like I could do the job." Each time, Frank asks for the date Potter acknowledged any changes to each policy.

They go over the conduct policy and law enforcement authority policy. Frank highlights officers’ discretion and then asks about how use of force is regulated by the department. Flesland says the policy tries to address that "There needs to be reasonableness in forces applied. It also recognizes that, I don’t believe there is any set of policies that could really address every situation that a peace officer will encounter."

They continue to go through parts of the policy, including things officers are supposed to consider when making arrests. Frank also notes a section of the policy on moving vehicles. Flesland says shooting at those in a moving vehicle is rarely effective and shooting the driver of a moving vehicle is discouraged because "the vehicle could strike something or somebody."

Moving on to firearms, Flesland says every officer will qualify with firearms once per year but training is provided, "ideally, quarterly at a minimum." They then go over the policies on vehicle and foot pursuits.

At 10:43 a.m., Chu allows jurors to leave for a 20-minute morning break.

She then tells attorneys they should discuss how to handle aggravating factors for sentencing guidelines in the event there’s a guilty verdict. Gray says he would want a separate trial on that but Frank says they’d all previously agreed in chambers that there would only be one trial to decide that. Chu says she remembers discussing the issue in chambers but she doesn’t remember talking about a unitary or bifurcated trial. Frank reiterates that he remembers agreement over a single trial. Frank and Chu agree there hasn’t been any prejudice in the case any way and since Potter wasn’t in chambers with Chu and the attorneys and Gray says Potter doesn’t want a single trial, they’ll go with a bifurcated trial. Again, Frank seems frustrated, saying Potter was excused from being in court for those discussions so that’s why she wasn’t in chambers with them. Gray reiterates that they’ve never discussed a unitary trial with Potter and would want a separate trial on sentencing guidelines.

Frank says Potter needs to formally submit that she wants a bifurcated trial, if that’s what she wants, and if she’d waive the right to a jury for that. Chu then goes over that with Potter, noting that if she was convicted of either or both charges, Potter has a right to a trial over the aggravating factors. Potter then formally waives her right to a jury trial on the aggravating factors. The two accused aggravating factors are the crash Wright was involved in after the shooting and that Potter abused a position of authority.

At 10:59 a.m., Chu tells the attorneys to take a 15-minute break.

---

9:23 a.m.

At 9:04 a.m., Chu addresses the two motions filed by the state Monday. Assistant Attorney General Matthew discusses the state’s reasoning for the motion regarding Potter’s union membership. He says Potter’s union membership should be allowed because of the context of this case and the fact that when people worked with Potter, they felt that she had their back since she was their union representative. "The question is whether witnesses who are still a part of that union or were a part of that union when they knew here feel like they should have her back?"

Chu points out Potter isn’t connected to the union at all but Frank insists the jury should get to consider that relationship between Potter and some witnesses. Defense attorney Paul Engh then states that some of the witnesses who’ve testified weren’t in the union, which Frank disputes. However, Chu decides union membership questions aren’t relevant to the case and denies that state motion.

Assistant Attorney General Erin Eldridge then gives the state’s reasoning for its second motion, which seeks to preclude improper opinion testimony from witnesses. Eldridge says some testimony on Friday was "extremely prejudicial" and the state is concerned the defense will try to get witnesses to offer similar opinions over the course of the rest of the trial.

Earl Gray says the state’s witness offered the improper testimony on his own and the state never objected. "I didn’t pull this out of the clouds," he says. Eldridge rebuts Gray’s assertions regarding the law on lay opinions. Chu then says she won’t tell the jury to disregard Sgt. Johnson’s testimony on Friday. "I ruled that police officers can testify about what they have been trained to do, under certain circumstances." On other officers offering their opinions on if the use of a Taser was appropriate, Chu adds, "I believe that the police officers, due to their training, are entitled to render an opinion on that and it’s totally appropriate for them to do that."

Chu does rule that no witness "can testify that Officer Potter experienced action error" but says she won’t stop officers from testifying based on their experience and training.

The jury is then called in at 9:22 a.m. so the trial can resume.

---

The fifth day of testimony in the trial of former Brooklyn Center police officer Kimberly Potter is set to begin Tuesday morning.

Potter is charged with first- and second-degree manslaughter in Daunte Wright’s death during an April 11 traffic stop.

After the medical examiner who conducted Wright’s autopsy and several Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension agents and forensic scientists testified Monday, the state is expected to continue its case. Wright’s father may also be called to testify.

Court is set to reconvene at 9 a.m.

KSTP’s complete trial coverage

This story will continue to be updated throughout the day as the trial proceeds.