1 From: John Kennedy
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:59 PM
To: Sheri Hartz; Lorrayne Leong
Cc: Christine Daniel; Christie Crowl
Subject: FW: Regarding Item 11.2 tonight - military equipment From: John Lindsay‐Poland < >
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2022 4:39 PM
To: John J. Bauters <[email protected]>
Cc: John Kennedy <[email protected]>
Subject: [External] Regarding Item 11.2 tonight ‐ military equipment [Trying again with correct City Attorney address]
Dear Mayor Bauters,
I am writing to urge you, the full City Council, and City Attorney to consider two principal concerns about the Military Equipment policy on your agenda this evening: EPD’s assault rifles, and outside agencies that may deploy military equipment in Emeryville. This elaborates on the dialogue we have had via email over the last couple days.
1. Emeryville PD possesses assault rifles, which should be part of the information and proposed policy from EPD before you. We know EPD owns assault rifles because they acknowledge it and because a EPD officer used an AR‐15 to kill Yuvette Henderson in 2015.
AB 481 applies to assault rifles, as defined in the state assault weapons ban, Sections 30510 and 30515 of the Penal Code (see Section 7070(c)(10) of AB 481). The only exception to this application is if the assault rifles are "standard issue service weapons.” The vast majority of law enforcement agencies that have assault rifles do not consider them “standard issue” and as a result have included them in their proposed military equipment policies. In the Bay Area, these include:
Berkeley PD: MP4 rifles in Berkeley's proposed "controlled equipment" policy Albany PD: Doesn't own assault rifles but created a policy for them in case of a mutual aid deployment of them.
Hayward PD: Carbine rifles and other rifles are part of the military equipment policy.
Livermore PD: Includes patrol (assault) rifles in its military equipment policy San Leandro PD: Includes patrol (assault) rifles in its military equipment policy Note: Oakland PD has not yet posted its proposed military equipment policy. We have reviewed dozens of military equipment policies that have been proposed. The only police department in the state that I am aware of where officers who go out with assault rifles every day is Santa Cruz PD.
EPD’s use of an AR‐15 in the killing of Yuvette Henderson should make the department even more careful to be transparent about the assault rifles it has, how officers are trained with them, procedures for use, authorized uses and purpose, costs, number of rifles ‐ all of which are part of the use policies required by AB 481.
If EPD’s AR‐15s are standard issue for its officers, it raises other concerns and questions that you should ask. Since nearby law enforcement agencies are not using assault rifles as standard issue, what is the public safety difference between Emeryville and those jurisdictions? If there is no public safety rationale for making assault rifles standard issue Late Correspondence - April 19, 2022 City Council Regular Meeting 2 in Emeryville compared to nearby jurisdictions where they are not standard issue, then EPD is issuing assault rifles not based on a public safety criterion. Why? This should be opposed as excessive militarization.
2. Without its own policies for the use of equipment such as teargas, rubber bullets, armored vehicles, and other militarized gear, any deployment of such equipment by an outside agency ‐ such as the Sheriff’s Office ‐ in a mutual aid deployment ‐ such as a protest or SWAT operation ‐ will occur under the outside agency’s policies. The Sheriff’s proposed policies were on the agenda today of the Alameda County Board of Supervisors, but tabled. Under the proposed sheriff's policy, if the Sheriff’s Office deploys tactical gear in Emeryville, it will be under the Sheriff’s rules. As we have seen, the Sheriff deployed military gear for the eviction of the nonviolent occupation of a house in west Oakland by Moms 4 Housing in early 2020. A review of its policy for the militarized tank‐like armored vehicles it has leaves deployment open to any any circumstance, and shows no consideration of the impact on community members.
Some jurisdictions have put forward limitations on the use of military equipment by outside agencies, unless the equipment has been approved by the local governing body. For example, this is from the military equipment policy from Atherton and several other jurisdictions (language is from Lexipol):
COORDINATION WITH OTHER JURISDICTIONS
Military equipment should not be used by any other law enforcement agency or member in this jurisdiction unless the military equipment is approved for use in accordance with this policy.
It is important that Emeryville not cede its authority to make policy for weapons used within the City's jurisdiction ‐ and in fact AB 481 requires approval of equipment to be used within the City in the case of collaboration with another law enforcement agency. Section 7071(a)(1) states that:
"A law enforcement agency shall obtain approval of the governing body, by an ordinance adopting a military equipment use policy at a regular meeting of the governing body….prior to engaging in any of the following ...(D) Collaborating with another law enforcement agency in the deployment or other use of military equipment within the territorial jurisdiction of the governing body." Here is how another jurisdiction has handled policies for equipment that they anticipate could be used by a visiting agency during a mutual aid deployment:
Section Two: Qualifying Equipment known to be owned and/or utilized by law enforcement units with which the Brisbane Police Department collaborates and/or participates for law enforcement purposes Equipment Name: Wheeled vehicles that have a breaching apparatus attached ‐ CA Gov’t Code §7070(c)(3)
Quantity Owned/Sought: None (outside owned) Lifespan: Unknown.
Equipment Capabilities: Capable of breaching doors, gates, and other points of entry.
Fiscal Impacts: None. Equipment owned, maintained, and operated by another agency.
Training Required: The North County Regional SWAT Team [replace with “The outside agency will”] provides internal training for staff members prior to allowing them to drive breaching vehicles.
Manufacturer Product Description: Unavailable.
Purpose/Authorized Uses: Breaching doors, gates, and other points of entry.