San Leandro Police Militarization

(Photos of SLPD in 2013, courtesy of Urban Shield.)

Cops are not supposed to be soldiers. City streets are not a battlefield. Police are not meant to be military occupation. Law enforcement has become increasingly militarized over the years to the point that it is often hard to tell the difference between them. Here in San Leandro, our police department is finally moving to comply with Assembly Bill 481, an act to help change this trend.

Accordingly, the city has publicized a list of all the military equipment that SLPD possesses and uses, including chemical agents like tear gas, grenades like flashbangs, and heavily modified AR-15-style assault rifles. The latter are especially troubling because they are owned by individual officers, not the department itself. Indeed, the use of personal non-standard equipment of this nature is troubling, to say the least, given the lack of extensive rationale to justify their use. Notably, command staff asserted that SLPD, purportedly, did not participate in the controversial 1033 and 1122 programs that sold surplus military equipment, from explosives and rifles to tanks and chemical weapons, at steep discounts to law enforcement agencies, and sometimes even gave them away for free. It seems that those assertions may have been somewhat exaggerated.

Now, AB 481 makes several findings and declarations in support of its provisions, specifically:

1. "The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs. Military equipment is more frequently deployed in low-income Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities."

2. "The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by state or local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment."

3. "Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input."

4. "Legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures, must be in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used."

5. "The lack of a public forum to discuss the acquisition of military equipment jeopardizes the relationship police have with the community, which can be undermined when law enforcement is seen as an occupying force rather than a public safety service."

There are a number of important questions to ask about personally-owned assault rifles. How is it decided which officers bring a personal weapon to work and which officers don’t? Are the officer reimbursed for the cost or do they receive a stipend for using their personal weapon? How does the department enforce its equipment policy for the equipment that it doesn’t own? Are officers allowed to bring their own conducted energy weapons (tasers) and body cameras? How are the weapons stored? Is that storage audited or checked, and if so, by whom and how frequently? How is any necessary maintenance monitored and who pays for it? What is the impact on public safety through the use of personal non-standard equipment? Since many of the personally owned assault rifles can be easily customized, have any of them been modified to make it easier to pull the trigger? Who checks for modifications and how often? (Credit to Mike Katz-Lacabe.)

There are also some changes to consider. AB 481 clearly establishes the minimum criteria for compliance, but also makes clear local governing bodies can adopt additional standards. Reviewing the legislative history of the law, there was an original provision stripped from the law on passage, which was to require that the public reporting on usage of military equipment by the police include an analysis of whether usage had a disparate or adverse impact on any particular community group. I believe that should be in SLPD's policy and the ordinance itself. The draft SLPD policy section on “coordination with other agencies “ allows other agencies that respond to our request for mutual aid to follow their own department policies on the use of military equipment rather than ours. I believe that they should be subject to the same policies as SLPD so that community members can expect the same level of service when officers from other agencies are present and acting on behalf of our department. Lastly, the draft SLPD policy includes a provision for “exigent circumstances” (imminent danger) whereby the police chief, at their discretion alone can supersede the policy. That is a fraught choice that undermines civilian control of law enforcement. Such a decision should explicitly require the approval of the City Manager. (Credit to Bob Bailey.)

Beyond that though are questions about why the department has failed to provide any detailed justification or rationale for the use of military equipment. The presentation materials provided by SLPD simply state that "[p]ublic safety will be negatively impacted." The draft policy asserts in its determinations that, "[t]he San Leandro Police Department’s Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy is necessary because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety ... The San Leandro Police Department’s Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties ... The military equipment identified in the San Leandro Police Department’s Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use Policy is reasonably cost effective [sic] compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objectives of officer and civilian safety."

However, there is never any data or evidence presented to support these conclusions. While some may be content with accepting these arguments at face value, AB 481 actually requires that police departments engage in the process of obtaining better tools, developing alternative methods, and creating other strategies to carry out their duties in lieu of the same failing militarized responses we've become accustomed to. The culture of law enforcement needs to change from this path of violence and brutality, where the reliance on an "us vs. them" mentality proliferates misconduct and murder. Our mindset has poisoned our police officers by turning them into an occupying force, which has dangerously conflated their role to serve and protect us and imperiled our constitutional rights to free speech and assembly, leading to more broken communities, irreparable trust between civilians and civilian law enforcement, as well as less public safety, including for our own police officers and particularly for BIPOC.

But it doesn't need to be difficult. We can hold police in high regard and hold them to high standards. I urge residents to call into the City Council's meeting on Monday, May 2, to voice their protests against the further militarization of our police department. If we want to build a better San Leandro for everyone, we must change our idea of the role police play in our community from one of a warrior to that of a guardian.

Take note and take care.

P.S. public comment template below courtesy of San Leandro For Accountability, Transparency & Equity:

FIRST, Section 7071 a (2) of AB481 states that police will discontinue the use of equipment only if the governing body fails to approve the policy within 180 days. You have 180 days—six months—to get this right. So if you have any concerns or questions, if you feel rushed, please know that you are NOT forced to act on this tonight as you may be led to believe. 

SECOND, the ordinance needs revision. The ordinance you’ve been presented with tonight covers the bare minimum of standards (for example: no reasonable alternatives explored, no data on cost-effectiveness ). But AB481 requires clear standards for EVERY CATEGORY of military equipment. We see this a little bit in the inventory document but it is a bare-bones, cookie-cutter sketch that doesn't actually explain the specific reasons or evidence underlying the use of each item. An example: “Use is authorized when it would enhance officer safety or in training environments.” This isn’t really a standard because the police department could justify anything in the name of officer safety. And the whole purpose of AB481 based on the bill and the legislative history is to create some oversight by local legislative bodies—YOU. Do you believe a bare inventory document is going to be adequate if anyone decides to challenge this ordinance legally? Does it meet best practices for transparency and accountability? Is this the most ethical way of addressing the problems AB 481 was designed to reform?

THIRD, passing this ordinance as-is will be a missed opportunity to demilitarize our police department. The demilitarization of local police departments is supported by the Alameda County Democratic Central Committee, which has endorsed many of your races, in a resolution passed several years back. Why do we need chemical agents, grenade launchers, an armored Bearcat tank, and 22 heavily modified, personally owned long-distance AR15 rifles? 

FOURTH, this is also a missed opportunity to seek input from the community police review board. My understanding is that our ordinance establishing this review board becomes active this week. You can lean on the expertise of the members you appoint and on members of the community to give you a more balanced view of the impact of these weapons on the community. 

This bill has given you some measure of oversight so please exercise it and do not pass this ordinance blindly because you feel false pressure to do so. Thank you for your time and attention to these comments.