OIPM: Frequently Asked Questions on Investigation of Office-Involved Death of Corey Ruiz

Yes. This office opened an independent investigation into the killing of Corey Ruiz under its own authority granted by Madison General Ordinance §5.19, separate from and independent of DCI's investigation.

Yes. Within minutes of Corey being killed, this office was called and was on scene, taking eyewitness statements and assessing what OIPM had access to.

Yes. IPM Glass was on the scene and moved into crisis response. When the protests started, IPM Glass stayed and was there with members of the PCOB to help with coordination and safety for grieving families and the community. PCOB members and some alders ensured a safety presence for the community as people marched, and made sure crisis and mental health support reached the community. IPM Glass was there on multiple days, serving in multiple capacities of her role. Her presence there was in her official capacity, coordinating safety and crisis response for this community with a trauma informed, racial and social justice and equity approach.

What is DCI's role? 

MPD chose DCI as the outside investigating agency, as required by state law for officer involved deaths. DCI collects evidence. That is the entirety of its function. DCI does not make a determination and does not issue a recommendation. Its report becomes DCI's property, loaned to MPD, and is not released to the public or to this office as a matter of course. 

What is the District Attorney's role? 

The District Attorney sits in on the officer interviews DCI conducts, receives DCI's full collection of evidence, and alone decides whether to bring criminal charges against the officer. That decision is about criminal prosecution only. It is not a finding on MPD's officer conduct, discipline history, use-of-force history, policy, or culture. The District Attorney does not determine an officer's employment status or removal, only whether criminal charges are filed. 

What is OIPM's role? 

OIPM is this City's independent civilian oversight and accountability agency, established by ordinance, operating outside MPD, outside the District Attorney's office, outside the Common Council, and outside the Mayor's administration. Under MGO §5.19(7)(b)1, this office may undertake its own independent investigation of MPD personnel at any time. OIPM reviews MPD's internal investigations, analyzes policing data for systemic patterns, issues formal findings and recommendations, and can pursue disciplinary action up to termination by appointing an attorney to represent a complainant's case before the Police and Fire Commission, which holds the power to discipline and terminate. 

What is the Independent Police Monitor's role? 

The Independent Police Monitor is the agency head, managing OIPM's staff and operations. The Monitor leads OIPM's investigations personally, reviews every case, and can appoint an attorney to bring a case before the Police and Fire Commission for discipline or termination under MGO §5.19(7)(b)4. The Monitor holds subpoena power under MGO §5.19(7)(j), unfettered access to MPD records under MGO §5.19(7)(i), and the authority to retain independent legal counsel under MGO §5.19(7)(l) for the OIPM and PCOB. The Monitor is accountable to the Police Civilian Oversight Board and this community, not to the Mayor, the Common Council, or MPD. 

What are the separate accountability and justice tracks in a case like this?

Criminal accountability asks whether a specific officer committed a crime, decided by the District Attorney based on DCI's evidence. Civil accountability asks whether the City or the department is legally liable, a separate legal process, often pursued independently by the family. Policy accountability asks whether MPD's own rules and training were followed, and whether those rules are adequate, and that is this office's job. This office also looks at an officer's prior history and any preventive measures that had already been recommended or should have been in place. A criminal case can end with no charges and this office can still find that policy was violated or needs to change and take other facts in to account.

Has MPD shared any evidence with OIPM in this case? 

No. 

Are there laws that prohibit OIPM from receiving evidence from MPD in this case? 

No. There are none. MGO §5.19(7)(i) entitles this office to unfettered access to MPD records, and this office holds subpoena power under §5.19(7)(j). 

Is MPD obstructing OIPM's investigation? 

Yes. On July 22, 2026, this office requested all records related to this matter. MPD first stated it did not possess them. MPD then stated state law prohibited disclosure. MPD identified DCI as the recipient of the records; that follow-up request has not been fulfilled. This office issued a formal subpoena on July 27, 2026, with a production deadline of July 31, 2026. As of this posting, MPD has not complied. 

Did IPM Glass get the evidence, or a plan to get it, at Friday's Capitol meeting? 

No. At that meeting, the District Attorney asked what this office's next steps were now that MPD had been subpoenaed. The IPM stated she was not interested in having that conversation with the District Attorney, as MPD's compliance with this office's subpoena is outside his jurisdiction. 

Is the City Attorney's office OIPM's attorney? 

No. The City Attorney's office represents MPD, the Mayor, and the Common Council, all at once. This office has repeatedly told the City Attorney, in writing, that OIPM is independent of every one of those entities and does not accept the City Attorney's office as counsel to this office. OIPM retains its own independent legal counsel, William Sulton. 

Do the City Attorney's opinions carry any authority over OIPM's work? 

No. The City Attorney's opinions on what they make up and on what state law allows regarding records access and OIPM's authority. Those opinions are not binding on this office. OIPM operates under its own ordinance-granted authority and follows state and federal law directly. The City Attorney's opinion carries no weight over how OIPM conducts its investigations or office operations. 

Is the City Attorney's office helping MPD obstruct this investigation? 

Yes. City Attorney routed this office's subpoena as a routine records request rather than responding to it as the lawful subpoena it is, and his office has used the time since to demand information about who is working with this office, its investigators, consultants, and contractors, rather than produce the evidence this office is legally owed. 

Is the Mayor's administration supporting this obstruction? 

Yes. The mayor's office has not corrected MPD's noncompliance or the City Attorney's handling of it, and the FAQ the Mayor's office published on this case is itself evidence of that support. 

What did City Attorney Haas demand instead of producing evidence? 

Haas's office demanded that this office immediately disclose the name of its independent counsel and the names of every investigator and contractor it has retained. This office has never disclosed that information before a case concludes and is not starting now. 

Why does the delay benefit MPD, the City Attorney, and the DA, and why does the Mayor's administration allow it? 

Delay is not incidental. It is the strategy. Every week MPD withholds evidence is a week MPD, the DA, and DCI get to control the only version of events the public has access to, letting their own account settle in before this office's independent findings ever reach the public. Delay also protects officers' current employment status and protections while the matter sits open, and it protects the City from civil liability exposure by keeping the record from becoming public any sooner than the City can control. 

Why hasn't MPD released the names of the officers involved? 

This office has not received officer names from MPD. We won't assume why.

Does the District Attorney work closely with MPD, and does that matter here? 

Yes, and yes. The District Attorney's office depends on MPD and other area departments for the cases, evidence, testimony, and cooperation it needs to prosecute the majority of its docket. 

Does OIPM believe the District Attorney should recuse himself from this case? 

Yes. This office believes District Attorney Ismael Ozanne should recuse himself, given his office's dependence on the departments whose officers are under investigation and his record. 

Can the District Attorney be forced to recuse himself? 

No outside body can force it. Recusal is a decision the District Attorney's own office makes, or one a court can address only within a legal proceeding. 

If he won't recuse, are there other options besides his own decision? 

Under Wisconsin law, a special prosecutor can be appointed under Wis. Stat. § 978.045, but that process is triggered by the District Attorney's own determination of a conflict, or by a court acting on its own motion, not by an outside petition from this office or the public. The Wisconsin Attorney General's office has authority to step into a criminal prosecution only in narrow circumstances: when authorized by the Governor, by the Legislature, at the District Attorney's own request, or under a specific statute authorizing that category of case, not as a general substitute when a conflict exists. If the District Attorney ultimately declines to bring charges, Wisconsin's John Doe statute, Wis. Stat. § 968.26, requires that the case file and a written explanation for the decision be forwarded to a judge, creating an avenue for independent judicial review of that decision.

What does the Mayor's FAQ get wrong? 

It presents DCI's investigation and the DA's charging authority as the whole picture. It omits OIPM's separate, independent investigation. It claims records access is restricted equally for the public and for OIPM. That is false. 

Why does it matter that MPD, not an independent body, chose DCI? 

Because "independent" only means something if the choice of investigator isn't made by the department being investigated. MPD selected DCI. That selection was MPD's, not an outside authority's. 

Is DCI's report public once it's finished? 

No, not automatically. It is DCI's property, loaned to MPD, and not released to the public or to this office as a matter of course. State law requires that report be made public if the District Attorney declines to pursue charges. District Attorney Ismael Ozanne has never pursued charges in a Wisconsin officer-involved death case. The Richard Lee Johnson case is a direct example: no charges were brought, and the DCI report was not made public. 

Has this kind of obstruction happened before? 

Yes. This office has documented that obstruction publicly and repeatedly

Does OIPM support body-worn cameras? 

Yes. Cameras and independent oversight are not competing priorities, they are both necessary. IPM Glass has advocated strongly with Chief Patterson for BWC because the two are not in competition: an officer working under clear policy and real oversight is safer, and so is the public that officer serves. Madison's earlier BWC pilot went forward without strong policy behind it, and this office documented officers muting their cameras following an unlawful arrest, and muting them while charges were being changed, on a sergeant's directive. A camera with strong policy tells the full story and creates accountability and transparency. A camera without policy and independent oversight can be used as a harmful tool in a already harmful criminal justice system.