LAW AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Jay Schenirer, Chair, District 5
Jeff Harris, Vice Chair, District 3
Katie Valenzuela, District 4
Eric Guerra, District 6
COMMITTEE STAFF
Wendy Klock-Johnson, Assistant City Clerk
Steve Itagaki, Supervising Deputy City Attorney
Consuelo Hernandez, Director of Governmental Affairs
Law and Legislation
Committee
City Hall-Council Chamber
915 I Street, 1st Floor
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-5163
FINAL CORRESPONDENCE
Description of Attached: Correspondence received after Agenda was published.
For the Meeting of: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 12:30 p.m.
Agenda Item: Discussion Item 2
2. An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy
File ID: 2022-00544
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Review an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy; and 2) pass a Motion forwarding the Ordinance to City Council for consideration.
Contact: Norman Leong, Deputy Chief, Office of Specialized Services, (916) 808-0800, [email protected], Police Department
From: Marshal Arnwine
To: Public Comment
Subject: March 29, 2022 Public Comment RE: Item 2
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 10:40:19 AM
Attachments: image001.png
ACLU NorCal_Public Comment_Item 2_3.29.22.pdf
Greetings Sacramento City Councilmembers:
My name is Marshal Arnwine and I work for the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU NorCal) in our Sacramento office as our legal policy advocate. ACLU NorCal is urgently requesting City Council to reject SPD’s military equipment use policy as currently written because it falls short of complying with AB 481.
Attached is our public comment on agenda item 2, “An Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy.
Best regards.
Marshal Arnwine, Jr.
He/Him/His
Criminal Justice Advocate/Police Practices
ACLU of Northern California
(916) 252-7929
| [email protected]
https://www.aclunc.org/staff/marshal-arnwine-jr
Greetings Sacramento City Councilmembers:
My name is Marshal Arnwine and I work for the ACLU of Northern California (ACLU NorCal) in our Sacramento office as our legal policy advocate. ACLU NorCal is urgently requesting City Council to reject SPD’s military equipment use policy as currently written because it falls short of complying with AB 481.
Please review SPD’s policy starting on page 3, subsection H titled “military equipment use.” Under this subsection there are 15 listed pieces of equipment. Under each equipment there are sections titled, purpose, authorized use, and legal and procedural rules.” A majority of the equipment listed are deficient in describing how the equipment is authorized to be used. Instead, it typically describes who is authorized to use it, but it does not describe in what situations its use is authorized. Further, to comply with AB 481, policies should also describe uses that are not authorized.
An example of noncompliance can be found on SPD’s policy on page 19, subsection 13, titled Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters. This section violates state law AB 48. AB 48 is a separate state law, which outlines how chemical agents are authorized to be used. SPD’s policy provides vague language on when chemical agents are authorized to be used. It states that chemical agents can be used in situations that may include but are not limited to: 1) Self Destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals; 2) Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents 3) Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained; 4) Potentially vicious animals; and 5) Training exercises or approved demonstrations. The phrase “not limited to” makes the list of authorized uses meaningless, since it suggests that authorized uses are limitless.
However, AB 48 does not permit limitless use of chemical agents for crowd control. AB 48 sets a standard that chemical agents to disperse gatherings, among other things, only be used to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual, peace officer, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under uncontrol. We recommend the chemical agent’s purpose and authorized use section to be consistent with state law AB 48 and list the proper authorized use requirements in SPD’s equipment use policy.
In conclusion, AB 481 provides city council 180 days from the time SPD submitted this policy to review.
Therefore, we urge city council not to vote on today’s policy because there are changes in the policy that must be implemented to comply with AB 481. Please use the allotted time to thoroughly review each equipment’s purpose and authorized use because this policy falls short of complying with AB 481. ACLU NorCal is available as a resource to collaborate with you in these efforts.
Best regards,
Marshal Arnwine
Criminal Justice Advocate- Police Practices
ACLU Foundation of Northern California
From: Louise Mehler
To: Public Comment
Subject: General Order 410.06
Date: Tuesday, March 29, 2022 11:06:44 AM
Dear Law and Legislation Committee,
I would like to comment on the proposal to replace Ordinance No. 2021-0034 with General Order 410.06. This seems to me to have several shortcomings.
For one thing, the intent of AB 481 seems to be that a responsible governing body, in this case the City Council, should consider individual items of military equipment in advance of their purchase and determine whether the proposed items and uses advance the city’s policies and goals in areas such as safety, equity and protection of civil liberties. General Order 410.06 simply declares that the listed equipment will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties and has no reasonable alternative. I saw no indication of civilian oversight at any point.
Additionally, I found no restrictions on the use of any of the listed equipment. On the contrary, each set of descriptions of purpose includes the phrase “include but are not limited to”.
Apparently, no potential deployment is off-limits. I find this concerning. We know that, when a person has a hammer, most problems come to resemble nails. I would like to see statements that identify situations (protest demonstrations, for instance, or psychological crises) in which aggressive or menacing equipment should not be used.
It appears that this equipment has been in use for some time. It disturbs me that we are asked to approve its governing policies without information about how often and in what circumstances it has been used before.
I ask the City Council to perform detailed annual reviews once reports are available to identify how the equipment is actually used and how that compares to the scenarios described to justify keeping the equipment available. To make such a review effective, it is necessary that the summaries of equipment usage include all deployments, not just those that escalated to use of force.
Thank you for your consideration
Louise Mehler
2019 Yale St
Sacramento 95818