From: Jennifer Rakowski
To: City Clerk; Manager Manager; Matthew McMullen; Nishant Joshi; Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen
Subject: [EXTERNAL] 7-B
Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 2:51:33 PM
California AB 481 requires governing body to annually review the military use ordinance.
The bill specifies “these provisions do not preclude a county or local municipality from implementing additional requirements and standards related to the purchase, use, and reporting of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.” This law makes critical space for transparent complex community conversations.
Recommendations:
● Add deployment considerations to authorized use policy. Use policies too broad, lacking descriptions of situational factors such as use around children, the elderly, or disabled, proximity to items which could become projectiles or flammable, proximity of other officers, verbal warnings or de-escalation efforts or other situational factors.
● Change the robot use policy. Authorized uses for robots are overly broad: “wherever an officer can legally be.” Refers to Policy 408, but that policy makes no reference to robots at all. San Francisco made national headlines for its similarly broad policy. Let's learn from the example and review more restrictive policy similar to Oakland or the one amended San Francisco policy.
● Define Critical Incident BATT/ Bearcat - authorized use for “specific circumstances of critical incident”. Critical incident not defined anywhere in APD policy manual (except for purposes of stress management), despite 11-page Critical Incident Response Team policy.
● Consult with Commission on Disability. People with disabilities are especially at risk for severe injury from “less- lethal” force. People with multiple chemical sensitivity, sensory disabilities, and mental health disabilities are at higher risk of injury or death. Alameda should review the specific risks and needs of residents with disabilities ● Add demographics to the annual report. Who in the community was present, impacted or the objects of deployments of military equipment.
From: Transform Alameda
To: Tony Daysog; Trish Spencer; Marilyn Ezzy Ashcraft; Malia Vella; Tracy Jensen Cc: Manager Manager; City Clerk
Subject: [EXTERNAL] AB 481 - Alameda Police Department Report Card Date: Tuesday, April 4, 2023 11:57:47 AM
Attachments: We sent you safe versions of your files.msg AB 481 Report Card.pdf
Mimecast Attachment Protection has deemed this file to be safe, but always exercise caution when opening files.
Hello:
As you're probably aware, California AB 481 is a new law that requires law enforcement agencies to publish information by May 1st, 2022 about a range of militarized gear used in policing and carceral facilities. This year more than 500 police and sheriff departments, including APD, are required to report to the public on how and why they have deployed assault rifles, impact projectiles, armored vehicles, drones, robots, and other equipment. They also must report on the costs associated with these deployments. After the reports are published, elected officials will decide what kinds of use, if any, should be authorized for military equipment for the next year based on these reports.
In order to aid in your assessment, with guidance
from the American Friends Service
Committee (an original and ongoing supporter of AB 481), we developed the attached scorecard for APD. Other cities around the state will be doing the same in the coming months.
It's clear from our report card that in Alameda, improvements are needed and a few outstanding questions remain:
What kind of use will be authorized moving forward in Alameda? What safeguards for the public will be put into place?
Why does so much of the reported use from APD continue to be in conjunction with Oakland's police department?
Is APD adequately familiar with Oakland's authorized use policies? Beyond these important questions, our report card also contains recommendations that should be taken into account. AB 481 is a critical piece of legislation that takes steps towards protecting people from the violence of militarized police forces. We hope you'll fulfill your duty in holding our local agencies accountable under this new law.
Thank you,
--
Web | Twitter | Instagram | Facebook
From: John Lindsay-Poland
To: Matthew McMullen; City Clerk
Cc: Jennifer Rakowski
Subject: [EXTERNAL] Comments and questions on Alameda PD military equipment / AB 481 annual report Date: Thursday, March 30, 2023 11:26:30 AM
Dear Captain McMullen,
I would have liked to attend the community meeting this evening regarding Alameda PD’s annual report and renewal of an ordinance on military equipment used by the Department, but I have a scheduling conflict. I would welcome a phone conversation with you, perhaps tomorrow, if that’s possible.
I would appreciate these comments going into the record, as well as a response to the questions I have raised.
The American Friends Service Committee has read and analyzed many dozens of AB481 / military equipment policies, and now annual reports. We’ve worked with elected officials, law enforcement officials, police oversight bodies, community members, advocates, and city attorneys on the implementation of this law. I’ve read the Department’s annual report and AB 481 policies.
First, a few questions:
1. What period of time does the report on use and costs cover - all of 2022, or only the period since July when the City Council approved the policy?
2. It appears from the report, in the incidents outlined, that the only type of military equipment deployed during the reporting period was the armored vehicle. Is that correct? Did the Department not deploy patrol rifles or any other type of military equipment during that period?
3. We have worked closely with the Oakland Police Commission and OPD regarding its military equipment policies, including for armored vehicles and for deployments of military equipment in Oakland by outside agencies, for example during mutual aid operations. When Alameda PD has loaned its armored vehicle to Oakland (such as the two times in December), what briefing has OPD given to APD officers about its policies for use of armored vehicles within Oakland?
Some comments:
The annual report provides useful details on each deployment of armored vehicles. The report on fiscal costs is very well done, and we are glad that the Department fully observed AB481’s requirement to outline fiscal costs that include the cost of personnel (which is typically the largest of costs). It would be important to break down these costs according to type of equipment, to fully understand how these costs are distributed and aid in a cost/benefit analysis of different types of equipment.
The policies for authorized uses of some types of equipment are overly broad. For example, robots can be deployed wherever an officer can legally be - this is almost unlimited. The robot policy refers to Policy 408, but Policy 408 makes no mention at all of robots, by any name, so it is completely unclear how Policy 408 is supposed to guide use of robots.
Similarly, the armored vehicle/ BATT policy authorizes use “based on the specific circumstances of a critical incident.” This doesn’t say anything about where to draw the line in deploying this equipment. In addition, although the phrase “critical incident” is used dozens of times in the policy manual, it is nowhere defined (except very tangentially in a section on stress management, clearly including non-law enforcement situations). The lack of definition of “critical incident” means that anything could be a critical incident, leading to deployment of military equipment in too many situations.
AB 481 was designed to allow community input, and governing body decision, on when it is appropriate to use military equipment - and when it is not appropriate. Ambiguous and overly broad language about authorized uses evades this purpose. APD would not be alone in doing this, but if the agency want to set an example - as I believe it does in outlining the actual personnel costs of using certain types of equipment - it should make the language of authorized specific and acceptable to community members as well as law enforcement.
Thanks so much for your attention to these questions and concerns. best,
John Lindsay-Poland
American Friends Service Committee
California Healing Justice Program
Tel: 510-282-8983