City of Sacramento
Personnel and Public Employees Committee Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-00230 3/21/2023 Discussion Item 4.
Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s Annual Report for 2023 File ID: 2023-00230
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Review and provide direction on the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s (“SCPRC”) 2023 Annual Report which includes its 2023 Workplan (Attachment 2) and 2022 Recommendations (Attachments 3-5); and 2) provide direction to either: a) have staff forward the Annual Report to the City Council for direction and action on the 2023 Workplan and/or the 2022 Recommendations; b) have staff update the Annual Report based on Personnel and Public Employee Committee ("P&PE Committee") direction(s) and forward the updated Report to the City Council for direction and action on the 2022 Recommendations; or c) have staff or the SCPRC return to the P&PE Committee with supplemental information for its consideration of forwarding the Annual Report to City Council.
Contact: Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk, (916) 808-5442, [email protected], Office of the City Clerk,
Presenter: Graciela Castillo-Krings, Chair, Sacramento Community Police Review Commission Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2-Sacramento Community Police Review Commission Staff Report and Workplan Dated February 13, 2023
3-Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s 2022 Budget and Transparency Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations
4-Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s 2022 Military Equipment Use Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations
5-Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s 2022 Surveillance Ad Hoc Committee Recommendations.
Additional Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: Advisory bodies of the City are required to provide their recommendations and reports to the City Council in accordance with City Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 17, section C.
File ID: 2023-00230 3/21/2023 Discussion Item 4.
Specifically, the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (“SCPRC”) is required to provide an approved annual report for the Personnel and Public Employees (“P&PE”) Committee’s review. (Council Rules of Procedure Chapter 17, sections C(1) and C(2)(d)) Among other things, that report should include SCPRC’s proposed projects for the upcoming year and its recommendations. (Council Rules of Procedure Chapter 17, section C(2)(b)). The SCPRC approved its 2023 Workplan on February 13, 2023 and its 2022 Recommendations on March 13, 2023. Its 2023 Annual Report includes this Workplan and Recommendations.
2023 Workplan - Attachment 2
As to its 2023 Workplan, the SCPRC was created to provide community participation in reviewing police department policies, practices, and procedures and monitoring the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of city policing initiatives and programs. (Sacramento City Code section
2.110.030.A.). Among other things, the SCPRC is required to advise and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the City’s policing policies, procedures, and best practices. (Sacramento City Code section 2.110.020.C.). To do this, the SCPRC monitors and evaluates the City’s policing initiatives and programs. The SCPRC meets publicly about 10 times a year with meetings usually ranging from one to three hours. While these meetings are staffed by the City Clerk’s office, the Commission lacks formal day-to-day staffing. As such, it is up to the SCPRC to prioritize the policy items that will guide its work for each year. The attached Workplan is, not only submitted to the P&PE Committee as a summary of the proposed projects for the upcoming year incompliance with Council Rules of Procedure Chapter 17, it is an effort of the SCPRC to organize itself and identify the areas of concern that it will address for the 2023 year.
2022 Recommendations - Attachments 3-5
As mentioned above, the SCPRC is required to make recommendations to the Mayor and the City Council regarding the City’s policing policies, procedures, and best practices; and, at least annually, to make recommendations on the activities of the SCPRC and the City’s Police Department’s efforts to strengthen bias-free policing and community-police relations. (Sacramento City Code sections
2.110.030.A and 2.110.030.C).
In 2022, the SCPRC created three ad hoc committees, the Budget and Transparency Ad Hoc Committee, the Military Equipment Use Ad Hoc Committee, and the Surveillance Ad Hoc Committee.
Each committee develops recommendations which were discussed and ultimately adopted by the SCPRC as its 2022 Recommendations for Mayor and Council on March 13, 2023.
The P&PE Committee must review an advisory bodies’ annual report and provide direction to staff or the advisory body on the report before it is forwarded to City Council for consideration. The P&PE Committee may ask for supplemental information before it forwards the report to City Council. (Council Rules of Procedure Chapter 17, section C(3))
Policy Considerations: Council Rules of Procedure, Chapter 17 (C) - City Advisory Bodies outlines
File ID: 2023-00230 3/21/2023 Discussion Item 4.
the Advisory Body Reports process.
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
Environmental Considerations: Not applicable.
Sustainability: Not applicable.
Commission/Committee Action: On February 13, 2023 the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission passed a motion approving its 2023 Work Plan. On March 13, 2023, the SCPRC passed a motion approving its 2022 Recommendations.
Rationale for Recommendation: The SCPRC has completed its 2022 work and approved the culmination of that work through its 2022 Recommendations. In addition, it has composed and approved its 2023 Workplan. Pursuant to the City Council Rules of Procedure, P&PE review and direction is required before the matters can be considered by the City Council.
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
City of Sacramento
Sacramento Community Police Review Commission
Report
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
www.cityofsacramento.org
File ID: 2023-00058 2/13/2023 Discussion Item 8.
Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s Work Plan for 2023 File ID: 2023-00058
Location: Citywide
Recommendation: 1) Discuss Sacramento Police Review Commission’s (the “Commission’s”) Work Plan for 2023, and 2) Pass a Motion approving the Commission’s 2023 Work Plan.
Contact: Michele Valeros, OPSA Specialist, (916) 808-7533, [email protected], Office of Public Safety Accountability
Presenter: Graciela Castillo-Krings, Chair, Sacramento Community Police Review Commission Attachments:
1-Description/Analysis
2- Work Plan for 2023
Description/Analysis
Issue Detail: The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (“Commission”) was created to provide community participation in reviewing police department policies, practices, and procedures and monitoring the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of city policing initiatives and programs. (Sacramento City Code section 2.110.030.A.). Among other things, the Commission is required to advising and making recommendations to the City Council regarding the City’s policing policies, procedures, and best practices. (Sacramento City Code section 2.110.020.C.). To do this, the Commission monitors and evaluates the City’s policing initiatives and programs.
The Commission meets publicly about 10 times a year with meetings usually ranging from one to three hours. While these meetings are staffed by the City Clerk’s office, the Commission lacks formal day-to-day staffing. As such, it is up to the Commissioners to prioritize the policy items that will guide the work for each year.
The attached work plan is an effort of the Commission to organize itself and identify the areas of concern that the Commission will address for the 2023 year.
Policy Considerations: Not applicable.
File ID: 2023-00058 2/13/2023 Discussion Item 8.
Economic Impacts: Not applicable.
Environmental Considerations: Not applicable.
Sustainability: Not applicable.
Commission/Committee Action: Not applicable.
Rationale for Recommendation:) The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (SCPRC or Commission) was created to provide a venue for community participation in reviewing police department policies, practices, and procedures (Sacramento City Code section 2.110.030.A.).
The Commission is tasked with monitoring and evaluating the City’s policing initiatives and programs and is required to report and make its recommendations to Mayor and City Council annually. (Sacramento City Code section 2.110.020.C.).
Financial Considerations: Not applicable.
Local Business Enterprise (LBE): Not applicable.
- Page 1 -
SCPRC Work Plan – 2023
The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission (SCPRC or Commission) was created to provide community participation in reviewing police department policies, practices, and procedures and monitoring the implementation, evaluation, and sustainability of city policing initiatives and programs. (Sacramento City Code section 2.110.030.A.). Among other things, the Commission is required to advising and making recommendations to the City Council regarding the City’s policing policies, procedures, and best practices. (Sacramento City Code section
2.110.020.C.). To do this, the Commission monitors and evaluates the City’s policing initiatives and programs. The Commission consist of 12 volunteers appointed by the Mayor and Council.
The SCPRC meets publicly about 10 times a year with meetings usually ranging from one to three hours. While these meetings are staffed by the City Clerk’s office, the Commission lacks formal day-to-day staffing. As such, it is up to the Commissioners to prioritize the policy items that will guide the work for each year.
For each policy item, the Commission will need Commissioners to volunteer to conduct research; analyze complex policy; and meet with the Sacramento Police Department (“SPD”), community stakeholders, academia, and other experts. This will ensure that the deep policy analysis, which cannot be conducted in real-time during Commission meetings, is performed. The following is the Commission’s 2023 Work Plan.
Use of Force and Military Equipment (“MEU”) Policy
On September 13, 2022, the City Council adopted the MEU Policy and must review policy annually.
Research and Outreach Goals Work Calendar Volunteers
● Facilitate community participation in
reviewing military equipment use
reported by the Sacramento Police
Department (“SPD”) and ensure
compliance with AB 48 and AB 481.
● Review de-escalation Tactics &
Procedures
●
● In collaboration with SPD,
formalize a community outreach
process
● Provide recommendations to the
City Council for future changes of
MEU General Order 410.06.
● If recommendations are adopted by
Council, monitor and evaluate
February-
Perform research and
provide presentations
to the Commission
Draft proposed
recommendations
Organize stakeholder
meetings
- Page 2 -
SPD’s implementation of
Commission recommendations.
SPD Accountability & Organizational Culture
Research and Outreach Goals Work Calendar Volunteers
● Review SPD policies/General Orders
and procedures related to professional
conduct
●
● Review SPD Fiscal Year 2023/24
spending priorities and assess strategic
goals to provide recommendations for
full Committee Approval
● SPD Chase Policy review, including
training procedures and policy.
● Fiscal Analysis (proposed vs actual
trends)
● Search & Seizure Policy review,
including training procedures and
policy. Including, evaluating how
towing cars that may contain a
person’s work equipment, sleeping
quarters, school work, or be used to
transport for getting to work,
conducting work, taking family
members to school or health services.
● Commissioners work with OPSA to
better understand why there are so
●
● Annual Strategic Planning / Goal-
Setting
● Providing recommendations to the
Commission for future action
related to project implementation
February-
September
Agenda Items
Perform research and
provide presentations
to the Commission
Draft proposed
recommendations
Organize stakeholders
meetings
- Page 3 -
many complaints on discourtesy and
conduct unbecoming. Look at best
practices for other cities.
● Review with SPD Search and Seizure
policy and begin working on
recommendations for this and
customer service.
2018-2021 Recommendations
Research and Outreach Goals Work Calendar Volunteers ● Work with SPD, City Manager’s
Office, Legal and any other relevant
department to create a process for
Commission’s policy
recommendations to move forward for
Council action.
● Work with SPD to outline which
recommendations have been adopted,
rejected, or if no action has been
taken.
● Organize outstanding past years
recommendations into a
standardized format that can be
easily reviewed.
●
February –
September
Agenda Items
Perform research and
provide presentations
to the Commission
Draft proposed
recommendations
Organize stakeholder
meetings
Ad Hoc Committee #1 - Budget Transparency Ad Hoc Committee - 2022 Recommendation Number General Order Section Referenced (if any)Description of the Issue/Problem Recommendation Rationale/Support Sacramento Police Department Response____________ City Department Response (if needed)City Attorney Budgetary Considerations 1 N/A It is unclear how SPD calculates its annual budget, key considerations for growth requests, or other budgetary reporting practices.
Adopt a New General Order: Create a standalone budget transparency policy detailing the annual budgeting process and financial accounting methods use determining SPD's budget. The policy should require SPD to adopt strategic, measurable, ambitious, realistic, time-bound, inclusive and equitable (SMARTIE) goals for all current and future programs and services provided under the Department's budget. The policy should also include, but is not limited to, the following information:(1) Definitions of all budgetary terms, descriptions for job classifications, and measurements of success used by SPD(2) The key performance indicators, benchmarks, and other data used by SPD to determine its budgetary priorities and spending(3) The contact information and organizational assignment for the designated supervisor responsible for SPD's financial accounting and annual budget preparations(4) The contact information for the designated City liaison working with the SPD in developing its annual budget(5) The procedure for submitting inquiries, complaints, or violations of SPD budgetary policy.(6) SPD's methods and practices used in its financial accounting, including how it calculates budgetary growth requests and fiscal surpluses or deficits. (7) Reporting practices for its annual budget, including key dates and fiscal year timeline for when its budget is proposed, considered, and approved.(8) References to all General Orders, City and State Codes relevant to SPD's budgetary policy, procedures, and practices.
As of Fiscal Year 2022/23, the SPD budget accounts for up to 40% of the City's general fund budget. And yet, SPD provides no public transparency in how it prepares or calculates its budget. The only insight the SCPRC has received was from then-Deputy Chief Kathy Lester in September 2021, who responded to our inquiries for a total cost breakdown of SPD's budgeted programs and service by stating that SPD does not currently track the total costs of each program or service.Community members have long raised concerns and frustrations with the City's budget priorities given the converging crises we face as city concerning homelessness, mental health, climate change, and COVID-19. Sacramento residents deserve full transparency about the budgeting process and accountability for ensuring equitable allocation of funds for all City departments that serve them, including SPD. To that end, the Commission recommends establishing a clear policy detailing SPD's annual budgeting process. 2 N/A The public does not have open or easy access to review SPD's annual budgets.
Changes to Existing Policy(s): Create a standalone budget transparency page and open data portal providing details of SPD's fiscal budget from year to year.
SPD is currently the largest and most well-funded department in the City of Sacramento, comprising up to 40% of the city's General Fund. Such significant investment of public resources into a single department warrants a significant level of transparency, but beyond requiring members of the public to comb through search archives buried within the City's Webpages, neither the City appears not to provide SPD's budget data in an easily accessible or understandable format.Significant questions were raised during the Fiscal Year 2022/23 (FY2022/23) Budget cycle regarding SPD's total budget related to its General Fund and Measure U allocations, where it was revealed that the City Manager's Office had accounted for Measure U funds as labor offsets that subtracted from the Department's total budget before conducting later conducting a "Measure U realignment" to report it as part of its total budget. In public documents provided by the City, SPD's approved budget for FY2020/21 was listed at more than $156M and its FY2021/22 approved budget at over $165M. But in FY2022/23, public documents listed the FY2020/21 Actuals for SPD were reported exceeding $182M and the FY2021/22 Amended budget was over $211M. City Council approved SPD FY2022/23 budget at over $228M, representing a $46M increase over the past 2 fiscal years alone.Community trust in SPD is at an all-time low, and discrepancies in how the city is allocating discretionary funds to the Department do not serve to repair or improve upon that trust. Therefore, the Commission recommends that SPD's budgets information is publicly listed separately on the City's website and provide an open data portal that provides access for members of the public to review how the Department allocates its funds and its metrics for success from year to year. Comparable jurisdictions such as the Oakland Police Department currently provide a model example of what an SPD budget transparency page and open data portal could be and the Commission recommends the City provide nothing less than this. Upon approval, we recommend the City take immediate steps to create this budget transparency page and open data portal as soon as possible and provide links to these sources that are easy to find for the general public, with links provide on SPD's webpage, the City Manager's webpage, and the Department of Finance webpage. The page should also include links to previous budget documents for every fiscal year available.Supporting sources:(i) Police FY2021-23 Adopted Policy Budget, City of Oakland, https://stories.opengov.com/oaklandca/published/PtSwOdX72 (ii) All police-related budget data, City of Oakland Data Portal, https://data.oaklandca.gov/Financial/All-police-related-budget-data/6qwi-azmw3 N/A SPD does not provide an active duty roster for the public to know who is currently employed by the Department.
Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require SPD to publish an active SPD personnel roster on an annual basis that includes the following information:i. Alphabetical listing of all sworn officers and civilian employeesii. Badge or ID numberiii. Job Class Titleiv. Organization Assignment One of the biggest barriers to transparency and accountability for police officers is the degree of anonymity officers enjoy from the communities they serve, especially when police officers rarely live among within the same communities they serve. It is especially difficult for communities to be able to trust their police officers when there are no means to readily identify who they interact with, much less file complaints or hold them accountable for misconduct after encounters, beyond the name and badge number on a citation or business card. What happens when that citation or card is lost in the hustle and bustle of our daily lives? What other means are there to recall who they meet or other means to confirm the individual is employed with the police department? The Commission believes there needs to be a balance between insulating individual officers' personal lives and providing sufficient access to public employees funded by city taxpayers. To this end, we recommend the City publish an annual active duty roster of SPD sworn and non-sworn personnel that provides no more than their name, badge or ID number, job classification, and organization assignment. As this is currently done for SPD's leadership personnel on the Department's webpage, this list could be provided on the same page and published annually at the beginning of each fiscal year. 4 N/A SPD does not provide meaningful measurements for evaluating the outcomes of its annual spending relative to its stated goals.
Changes to Existing Policy(s): Require SPD to track and report the vacancy rates for all budgeted positions at the end of each fiscal year. Vacancy rates should be presented publicly to City Council during SPD's annual budget presentation without exception. Reports should include, but are not limited to, the following information:i. The total number of vacant positions by job classification, including the net change in these positions during the current fiscal yearii. The total number of vacancies opened in the current fiscal year by their reason (retirement, termination, or transfers)iii. The total number of vacancies that have been unfilled for more than two fiscal yearsiv. The total cost unspent from vacancies, including how these funds were spent over the last two fiscal years SPD currently does not provide a public accounting of the total number of vacant FTE positions budgeted by the department, the total cost unspent while those positions were vacant, and where that money was spent for at least the last two years. During the FY2022/23 budget discussions, Councilmember Valenzuela had requested data about the Department's vacancy rates for budgeted positions and what happens to that money when the position is unfilled, as well as data that identifies if any transfers are happening between the police department and the department of community response. The Commission and the general public have an interest in reviewing the Department's vacancy information that includes an accurate accounting of total vacant positions by job classification, the total amount of unspent budget funds from vacant positions, and details about where these funds were spent for no less than the last 2 fiscal years. The Commission recommends the City Council require SPD to track and report its vacancy rates for all budget positions at the end of each fiscal year and report this information during its annual budget presentations. 5 N/A There is no detailed or publicly available reporting related to 911 calls for services, total number of arrests and dispositions, complaints and lawsuits, or other data for the public to easily access to allow review and monitory of the efficiency or outcomes of SPD's programs or services.
Adopt a New City Ordinance: Create a Data Transparency ordinance that requires SPD to provide tracking and allow analysis of all city law enforcement data, including but not limited to traffic enforcement and non-traffic (pedestrian) enforcement to allow for the public to easily know whom SPD stops, when, where, why, and what the outcome of that stop was. The ordinance should require the creation of an open data portal that includes, but is not limited to, the following information: i. Total number of traffic stops and non-traffic stops including the time frame (hour, day, year) and code violation for each stop.ii. The demographics of each person stopped, including their race and gender.iii. The geographic location of each stop down to the cross street, neighborhood, and zip code.iv. The outcome of each stop.v. Whether a search was conducted and the reason for each search.
Despite efforts by SPD to provide transparency related to Use of Force incidents and Crime Reports, the Department has received consistent complaints excessively slow response to public records act requests required by the Freedom of Information Action (FOIA) and AB 1421 which has made it the subject of several lawsuits against the city. The Department does not appear to actively track or proactive report on data for its law enforcement activities such as traffic stops or non-traffic stops, even though 3 separate studies since 2001 showing that SPD consistently over-stops Black motorists at nearly 3 times the rate of white motorists and Black pedestrians over 6 times as often as white pedestrians (despite Black people comprising less than 13% of the city's population).At a time when the lack of police accountability and systemic racism in the outcomes of SPD remains among the top concerns by Sacramento community residents, the Commission believes it is necessary for the City Council to compel a standard of transparency that requires SPD to provide law enforcement data proactively in the course of its duties. To that end, we recommend the City create and adopt a Data Transparency ordinance that requires SPD to track Therefore, we recommend the City Council adopt a binding Data Transparency to require SPD to provide tracking and allow analysis of all law enforcement data conducted with the city, including but not limited to traffic and non-traffic (pedestrian) enforcement. The ordinance should require the creation of a publicly accessible dashbord similar to the version used by the Baltimore County Police Department to allow for the public to easily know whom SPD stops, when, where, why, and what the outcome of that stop was.(i) Baltimore County Releases Traffic Stop Data Dashboard, Baltimore County Government. https://www.baltimorecountymd.gov/county-news/2021/06/04/baltimore-county-releases-traffic-stop-data-dashboard Ad Hoc Committee #3: Military Equipment Use Ad Hoc Committee - 2022 Recommendation Number General Order Section Referenced (if any)Description of the Issue/Problem Recommendation Rationale/SupportSacramento Police Department Verbal ResponseSacramento Police Department Written Response____________ City Department Response (if needed)City Attorney Budgetary Considerations 1 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD policy does not detail the limits of military equipment or munitions available for use in civilian settings Amend GO 410.06(C): Add specific language that prohibits purchase, acquisition, or usage of any military equipment or munitions that are prohibited by the Federal government for use by the US Military or law enforcement agencies.While SPD is required by state law to contract with the Federal government to acquire its military equipment and munitions, there appears to be no state rules prohibiting banned equipment from being acquired. Out of abundance of caution, the Commission recommends this policy include specific language that prohibits the purchase, acquisition, or usage of such banned equipment. The Federal government provides a list of banned military equipment which cannot be used by the US military or local police forces.Not accepting this recommendation. On August 28, 2017, then President Trump, signed Executive Order #13809, rescinding the prior Obama era Executive Order and the policies requiring standards and training for the use of military equipment. While SPD still retains a copy of the federal list of banned equipment produced during the Obama Administration, it will not be considered standing policy because it is no longer updated or maintained.SPD currently possesses a helicopter and fixed-wing aircraft from the federal government that is not included in this policy. It is still prohibited from weaponizing fixed-wing aircraft.2 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD's annual military equipment use (MEU) reports do not require comparative or demographic reporting that would provide measurable data to meaningfully assess how its military equipment is being used.
Amend GO 410.06(D): Add specific language requiring SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting to provide information that includes, but is not limited to:1. Where it uses its military equipment and munitions;2. Who it is used against3. In what context the equipment is used.
AB 481 requires a law enforcement agency to submit an annual military equipment report that at minimum covers the following:- A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.- A summary of any complaints or concerns received concerning the military equipment.- The results of any internal audits, any information about violations of the military equipment use policy, and any actions taken in response.- The total annual cost for each type of military equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs, and from what source funds will be provided for the military equipment in the calendar year following submission of the annual military equipment report.- The quantity possessed for each type of military equipment.If the law enforcement agency intends to acquire additional military equipment in the next year, the quantity sought for each type of military equipment. Using the information contained in the annual report, City Council is required to “only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to this chapter if it determines all of the following:(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.(B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.(C) If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.(D) Prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.”The City and SPD frequently mentions their desire for data-driven policies, but nothing within the 2021 annual MEU report provides metrics for meaningfully measuring the impacts of this policy or evaluate whether SPD's use of military equipment genuinely safeguards the public's welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties as required by AB 481. The current policy language appears to be vague in its annual reporting requirements and does not require SPD to provide annual metrics for how it uses its military equipment compared with the US military, where it is used, or in what context. Under its current “Summary of Military Equipment Usages,” the department only provides the total number of uses and unauthorized uses under each military equipment category within a broad time period between 12/14/2021 and 4/30/2022, but it fails to summarize how equipment was used in these incidents, the outcomes from those incidents or the purpose for their usage. The department also re-states when its usage is authorized without providing additional context. SCPRC believes that in order for future reports to be AB 481 compliant, these must provide information about where the equipment was utilized, who it was used against and the reason SPD thought it necessary. The Commission recommends adding specific language that requires comparative reporting to illustrate the differences between how the US military used this equipment versus how SPD is using them against civilians in Sacramento. According to SPD, the current policy appears to require comparative reporting but we think this language can be more explicit in stating its purpose for such reporting.The Commission also recommends adding specific language requiring demographic reporting to provide information about where SPD uses its military equipment and munitions; who it is used against; and in what context the equipment is used. According to SPD, its annual report for military equipment use is compiled by its Inspection and Standards Team (IST) which does not track demographic information. However, it does collect this data for its Use of Force Reports which are compiled by the Professional Standards Unit (PSU). If this data is collected in other SPD reports, then those reports or links to them should be incorporated into the annual military equipment use report. Having the information in one place will improve public access and make any deployments visible to the community creating accountability.
Not accepting this recommendation. The 2021 annual report is now public and changes cannot be made. This recommendation might be considered for the 2022 report, but will strictly follow minimum requirements of AB 481. Current SPD data programs uses Microsoft Excel system to track demographic information that is included in UOF reports, but is not as simple as using ""copy & paste"" function to combine the reports. The UOF reports are compiled by the Professional Standards Unit. The annual reports for military equipment use are compiled by the Inspections and Audit Team, which does track whether someone is harmed or not by SPD's military equipment use." 3 GO 580.02 Use of ForceGO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD language related to military munitions usage is overly vague or too broadChanges to Existing Policy(s): Add specific language detailing the usage, rationale and justification for use of all Armor-Piercing (AP) munitions in the context of public safety.While current UOF policy governs the use of AP munitions when suspects are heavily armored in Class level 4 or above, SPD does not have specific use policy related to their usage. Given its clear military applications, we recommend adding language that provides criteria for using AP munitions, including a rationale, restrictions on its use, and other criteria governing where, against whom, and in what context they may be used.Not accepting this recommendation. AP rounds are subject to the authorized use requirements of the Rifle that fires them as stated in the policy. Use of AP rounds is considered lethal force and is governed by recently-updated UOF policy (ie, last resort based on totality of circumstances). To our knowledge, SPD has never once used an AP round.4 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD policy allows the department to apply for funds prior to Council's approval under exigent circumstances.
Amend GO 410.06(G): Require SPD to seek City Council approval before any public or private funding may be spent to procure, acquire, or purchase military equipment under AB 481. Require all annual procurements, acquisitions, or purchases be submitted separately from SPD's annual report or policy updates for consideration by the Budget & Audit Committee.GO 410.06 currently authorizes SPD to “apply for funding prior to obtaining council approval in the case of exigent circumstances.” SCPRC agrees that there might be circumstances where public funding may only be available with limited notice and require SPD to move quickly in order to apply for funding. However, this money should not be used until the City Council authorizes such action. While SPD currently lists its projected acquisitions within its 2021 annual report, the General Order itself also lists an “annual procurement” quantity and cost for each item of equipment. Upon the City Council approving either SPD’s annual report or updates to this policy, this may allow SPD to continuously stockpile military weapons and equipment on an annual basis without a cap.This approval will increase public transparency and ensure accountability for SPD to only purchase military equipment that is cost-effective in comparison to other reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
Not accepting this recommendation. Whether it is public or private, SPD may apply for military funding grants as it is seeking City Council approval, but cannot accept or receive funds until City Council approval. 5 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD policy does not catalog military-grade firearms and launchers separately from their military-grade munitions and projectiles.
Amend GO 410.06(H): Catalog SPD inventory of military-grade firearms and launchers separately from their respective munitions and projectiles.The catalog of military equipment should be transparent enough for the public to accurately distinguish between firearms and launchers from the different types of ammunition they use. As currently written, SPD lists ammunition together with weapons in such a way that is not clearly destinguishable for members of the public or the Commission. The Commission recommends adding separate bullets and numbering under each type of military weapon and equipment category to clearly list firearms and launchers separately from their respective ammunition and projectiles.Not accepting this recommendation. AB 481 does not separate weapons from munitions. 6 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD's policy uses vague or overly broad terms to allow military equipment to be deployed, but without any clear limits for how it is used in civilian settings.
Amend GO 410.06(H)(1-15): Add written language to clearly state the limits and conditions for SPD's use of each type of military equipment in compliance with AB 48 and AB 481, including specific details for when it is authorized for use and when it is unauthorized for use.If the current MEU policy can describe situations where equipment can be used, the proposed policy should also specify the situations in which it cannot be used. We recommend that City Council add clear language stating the specific situations where SPD is unauthorized to use military equipment. For example, specific situations such as: * if use of drones for criminal investigations is not authorized without a warrant; * if use of rubber bullets and chemical agents is not authorized when vulnerable persons are present, or for crowd control; * if use of armored vehicles for arresting a suspect is not authorized without consideration of alternatives. While SCPRC appreciates the removal of some ambiguous language and the addition of governing policies for each type of military equipment, the inclusion of phrases such as “crowd control” and “circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained” are so broad that SPD could authorize military equipment use for virtually any situation, even when reasonable or cost-effective alternatives may exist. For instance, the current draft describes specific situations for the authorized use of 40MM Launchers and Rounds, stating:“Approved situations for use of these less lethal weapon systems include: i. Self-destructive, dangerous and/or combative individuals. ii. Riot/crowd control and civil unrest incidents. iii. Circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained. iv. Potentially vicious animals. v. Training exercises or approved demonstrations.”The lack of clear limitations for using military weapons and equipment is among the most serious concerns raised by community members, civil rights advocates, and members of City Council. These concerns arise from a documented history of racial bias and discriminatory outcomes in SPD practices and procedures which 3 separate studies over the last 20 years have confirmed to disproportionately impact Black residents. Following the 2020 George Floyd protests in Sacramento, video documentation shared at City Council on January 19th, 2021, was alarming enough for the Mayor and City Council to direct OPSA and SCPRC to investigate potential misuses of military equipment against peaceful protesters. That response is currently the subject of at least 2 ongoing lawsuits calling into question whether SPD’s prior military equipment policies were followed and whether the policies avoided excessive use of force. Given this history and the questions these incidents raise, it is important for the City Council to require SPD to clearly define unauthorized usage of its military equipment to show the public that corrective action has been taken to remedy prior nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance with AB 481. Therefore, the Commission recommends that City Council add clear language stating the specific situations where SPD is unauthorized to use military equipment. Supporting Sources:i. Center for Policing Integrity, The National Justice Database City Report, Sacramento Police Department, 2014 - 2019, https://public.tableau.com/app/profile/center.for.policing.equity/viz/SacramentoPDCPE2021/1_SUMMARYii. Dr. Howard P . Greenwald, Final Report: Police Vehicle Stops in Sacramento, California, October 31, 2001, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/Police/Transparency/Vehicle-Stop-Data-History-and-Information#:~:text=Vehicle%20Stop%20Data%20Analysis%20Project.iii. Dr. John C. Lamberth, Traffic Stop Data Analysis Project for the Sacramento Police Department, August 2008, https://www.cityofsacramento.org/-/media/Corporate/Files/Police/Transparency/VSDF/SacramentoPoliceDepartmentFinalReport_8-7-08.pdf?la=eniv. Agenda Item #16, Police Department Presentation on Protest Activity, Sacramento City Council Meeting, January 19, 2021 (video shared during Sacramento City Councilmember Katie Valenzuela’s comments) https://sacramento.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4822&meta_id=612705v. Garza v. City of Sacramento, ED. Cal. Case No. 2:20-cv-01229-WBS-EFB (ongoing lawsuit alleging excessive use of force by SPD using military weapons and equipment)vi. White v. City of Sacramento, ED. Cal. Case No. 2:21-cv-02211-JAM-DB (ongoing lawsuit alleging discriminatory use of force and harassment by SPD using military weapons and equipment) Not accepting this recommendation. SPD will conform its policy to the minimum requirements of AB 481. "Include but are not limited to" langauge was removed from the General Order. New language was included and now reads: "All equipment and weapon systems in this General Order shall only be used within the regulations established in the respective General Order that governs each particular item." 7 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD provides no justification for why it needs military equipment or explanation as to how it meets AB 481's minimum requirements.
Amend GO 410.06(D): Require written justifications in each annual MEU report to provide context for why the military equipment in SPD's inventory is necessary and how it will achieve both officer and civilian safety while also safeguarding the welfare, civil rights, and civil liberties of the public. Written justifications should be provided for the following military equipment:1. Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) vehicles exceeding a purchase cost of $1000 or an annual maintenance cost of $5002. Robots3. Armored Vehicles4. Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs)5. 40MM Launchers and Rounds6. Less Lethal Shotguns capable of deploying chemical agents defined under California Penal Code 13652(d)(2).7. Precision Rifles capable of using .308-caliber or Armor-Piercing (AP) ammunition, exceeding a purchase cost of $1,500 per rifle, or require conversion for police use at a cost exceeding $50,000.8. All Ammunition, Canisters, Grenades, Rounds, or Projectiles considered kinetic energy projectiles under California Penal Code 13652(d)(1).9. All Ammunition, Canisters, Grenades, Rounds, or Projectiles containing any chemical agents defined under California Penal Code 13652(d)(2).10. All Ammunition, Canisters, Grenades, Rounds, or Projectiles considered AP ammunition or possessing AP capabilities.
Two of four minimum requirements under AB 481 states that City Council only approve a written MEU policy if:(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.(B) The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.During the approval process, SPD did not provide any detailed rationale or justifications for why the department needs its current stock of military equipment or how the equipment will simultaneously achieve both officer and civilian safety while also safeguarding the public's welfare, civil rights, and civil liberties. For example, while current UOF policy governs the use of Armor-Piercing (AP) munitions when suspects are heavily armored in Class level 4 or above, SPD does not have specific use policy related to their usage or justifications for its use. The only justification on record was provided verbally during SPD's presentation to the Law and Legislation Committee, where Deputy Chief Norm Leong cited an LA bank robbery from over 25 years ago as the most recent example for maintaining AP munitions.Given the clear military applications for AP munitions and other military equipment like the 40MM tactical 4-shot grenade launcher, the SCPRC and community members maintain serious questions and concerns for how it would achieve these goals simultaneously in compliance with AB 481. The Commission recommends adding language that provides a detailed justification for why the military equipment in its inventory is necessary and how it will achieve officer and civilian safety equitably while also safeguarding the public's welfare, civil rights, and civil liberties. 8 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD policy does not identify who or what entity will exercise independent oversight over the policy and uses of military equipment policy as required by AB 481.
Amend GO 410.06(F): Add written language to clearly designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General (IG), and the SCPRC to ensure SPD’s compliance with this policy and AB 481.Under AB 481, a military equipment use policy must include “the mechanisms to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent persons or entities have oversight authority, and, if applicable, what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy.” This requires SPD to identify an independent oversight entity and the legally enforceable sanctions for MEU policy violations, but the current policy provides none of these.Though the Department describes the procedure for filing and investigating complaints, the policy does not clearly define what “legally enforceable sanctions” are in place for MEU policy violations and only refers violations to be “handled in accordance with RM 220.01 (Internal Investigations Manual).” However, this manual does not provide a general disciplinary matrix or minimum baseline for sustained complaints. This lack of formal disciplinary guidelines has been cited by both the California Attorney General and the SCPRC, which have submitted separate recommendations for addressing this deficiency.The MEU policy designates SPD’s Inspections and Standards Unit and its Professional Standards Unit as their oversight authorities that would refer violations to the Internal Affairs Division and report instances of non-compliance to the City Council via its annual report. Given all three bodies are budgeted under the Department’s Office of the Chief, the selection of these three entities raises questions about the independence of these oversight authorities and seems contrary to the minimum requirements of AB 481. To ensure meaningful accountability under this policy, it is important for the City Council to choose an independent oversight authority separate from SPD that can be impartial and prioritize the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. To that end, the Commission recommends that the City Council designate OPSA, the Inspector General, and SCPRC as the independent entities responsible for providing meaningful oversight of SPD’s compliance with its MEU policy and AB 481. Supporting Sources:i. California Government Code Section 7070(d)ii. California DOJ, Review of Sacramento Police Department 2020 Report, pp. 65, https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/attachments/press- docs/SPD%20Report%20Phase%20II.pdfiii. Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 2020 Disciplinary & Accountability Ad Hoc Recommendations9 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD policy allows the department to continuously acquire stocks of military equipment without any limit on its total stockpile. SPD policy creates an unlawful exception to AB 481 to allow procurement, acquisition, or purchase of military equipment without approval of the governing body.
Amend GO 410.06(I): Add specific language establishing an upper limit for the quantity of each type of military equipment SPD may possess within a given fiscal year. Remove any language that would allow SPD to procure, acquire, or purchase military equipment without City Council approval, including the following language:SECTION I. MAINTENANCE OF MILITARY USE SUPPLY LEVELSWhen stocks of military equipment have reached significantly low levels or have been exhausted, the Department may order up to 10% of stock in a calendar year without city council approval to maintain essential availability for the Department’s needs. SPD is authorized to acquire additional stock of items listed here from other law enforcement agencies of CalOES in the event of an emergency when approved by the City CouncilCOP or designee.
SPD's MEU policy currently states: “When stocks of military equipment have reached significantly low levels or have been exhausted, the Department may order up to 10% of stock in a calendar year without city council approval to maintain essential availability for the Department’s needs.” This language essentially creates an ambiguous lower limit that allows SPD to order up to 10% of its military equipment stock and does not comply with AB 481, which requires all military equipment acquisitions by a law enforcement agency be approved by the governing body without exception. Conversely to this lower limit, the current policy language allows SPD to acquire “annual procurements” of flashbang grenades, teargas grenades, breaching shotgun rounds, chemical “Pepperball” launchers, and seven different types of drones with no upper limit on the equipment in stock. This concern was raised by community members and the SCPRC before the policy's approval, given the appearance that SPD is "stockpiling munitions" such as that have very specific uses but are highly unlikely to be necessary during any given year. For example, the General Order under Diversionary Devices SPD requests 108 additional 7290M Mini Flash-Bangs via its annual procurement quantities, despite having 108 units in stock, a life expectancy that lasts until used, and only having deployed Diversionary Devices a total of 8 times between December 14, 2021 and April 30, 2022. Establishing a lower limit would presume no reasonable alternatives exist for achieving officer and civilian safety, thereby disincentivizing the Department from proactively evaluating its inventory for cost-effective alternatives that achieve the same objective. Furthermore, this language allows SPD to continuously stockpile military weapons and equipment on an annual basis upon the City Council's approval of either SPD’s annual MEU report or updates to this General Order. The Commission recommends removing Section I entirely, along with any other language that would be construed to allow SPD to procure, acquire, or purchase military equipment without City Council approval. Additionally, we recommend adding language establishing an upper limit for the quantity of each type of military equipment in SPD's inventory within a given fiscal year.10 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseGO 525.09 Unmanned Aerial SystemsGO 580.02 Use of ForceGO 580.04 FirearmsGO 580.10 Use of the Conducted Energy Device (CED)GO 580.12 Less Lethal Weapon SystemsGO 580.15 Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) TeamGO 580.16 SWAT Diversionary DevicesGO 580.17 Use of the Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD)GO 580.18 Deployment of Armored VehiclesRM 532.11 First Amendment Assemblies ManualRM 580.07 Chemical Agents SPD has no written policy or requirement for evaluating or assessing the effectiveness of its military equipment stock or other technology.
Adopt a New General Order: Create a standalone policy establishing a recurring process for evaluating or assessing the effectiveness of military equipment and other technology SPD currently uses. Evaluations or assessments should include any reviews or analyses of cost-effective alternatives to military equipment which may exist at the time. The process should be conducted periodically (recommended once every 3 years) and produce evaluation reports that are shared directly with the SCPRC and made available to the public via the City's website. Any recent evaluations or assessments of military equipment conducted prior to the passage of AB 481 or SPD's GO 410.06 should be published under a new section in the next annual MEU report and referenced each year until the next evaluation is completed (beginning in 2023).
One of four minimum requirements under AB 481 states: "If purchasing [military] equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety." In producing its MEU policy, SPD did not appear to conduct any process for evaluation or assessing the effectiveness of its current military equipment stock and did not any details for what, if any, cost-effective alternatives it reviewed or trialed prior to City Council approving its policy.The Final Report of President Barack Obama's Taskforce on 21st Century Policing included among its recommendations an action item for all law enforcement agencies to include "an evaluation or assessment process to guage the effectiveness of any new technology" that includes input from all levels of the agency "from line officer to leadership" and an "assessment from members of the community." The Commission agrees with this recommendation and believes it should be established as a standalone policy that is referenced directly in SPD's MEU policy.The process should be conducted on an ongoing basis with a public report published every three years. The process for evaluating and assessing military equipment and other technology should include an intradepartmental survey to solicit input from line officers, union representatives, and members from other departmental units, such as research and planning, technology, and internal affairs. The evaluation report and departmental findings should then be reviewed and analysis provided by the City's police oversight bodies in OPSA and the SCPRC. Assessment should also include external stakeholders separate from SPD such as representatives from the City Attorney's office, civil rights attorneys, local advocacy groups, and other impacted community members. Each group should have the opportunity to ask questions, express their concerns, and offer suggestions for updates or changes to SPD policy and training. 11 GO 580.02 Use of ForceGO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD policy does not explicitly limit or prohibit SPD from using robots or drones as a Use of Force optionChanges to Existing Policy(s): Add specific language to SPD policy and city code to prohibit the use of Robots or Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) as a Use of Force option against any person without exception.Under GO 410.06(H) under UAS and Robot, add the following language to subsection (g): "Robots and Unmanned Aircraft Systems shall not be used as a Use of Force option against any person."Under GO 580.02(F), add line (g) under subsection (1) using the following language: "By means of a Robot, Unmanned Aircraft System, or any other type of remote-operated military equipment." While the discussion of use of deadly robots has been happening for years among military and law enforcement circles, the recent decision by San Francisco Board of Supervisors to initially authorize San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) to use robots to kill suspects when "loss of life to members of the public or officers is imminent and outweigh any other force option." his language and the arguments supporting them raise deep Oakland Police Department made a similar proposal, which has widely condemned by both residents and human rights groups alike. Regardless of what law enforcement or legal professionals may claim, there is nothing normal conversation in the course of modern law enfrocement practices and the Commission rejects any assertion to the contract. AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies to disclose how police use military weaponry and equipment, justify that use, and have it approved annually through a governing body such as the City Council. there is no data-driven evidence or ethical principle that While robot and drone use-of-force has never before been approved in Sacramento (and assuringly, SPD has publicly state it has no plans or interest to request this authorization), it also has never been prohibited and the Commission has concerns with how certain SPD policies' language are ambiguous enough to allow for SPD to use remote-operated technology as a UOF option. We believe clear ethical boundaries are necessary to ensure SPD maintains the utmost respect for the humanity of all Sacramento community members regardless of their suspicions or illegal activities. Therefore, we recommend for the City Council to explicitly prohibit Robots or UAS vehicles from being used to kill any person without exception and regardless of exigent circumstances.12 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD does not include personnel time in calculating the total cost of its military equipment as required by AB 481.
Amend GO 410.06(C): Require SPD to include the costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and other ongoing costs in its calculation the total annual cost and fiscal impact of each type of military weapon and equipment listed in its inventory and annual reports.AB 841 states that SPD and other law enforcement agencies need to report "the total annual cost for each type of equipment, including acquisition, personnel, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrade, and other ongoing costs." This is necessary to provide the most accurate and transparent information for the governing body and independent oversight authorities to measure the cost-effectiveness of SPD's military equipment use and hold SPD accountable to comply with state law. In its 2021 Annual MEU report, SPD states in its most recent annual report that 93% of its Departmental expenditures are for personnel costs. Under Training Costs (pg. 25), SPD lists a total of 6 trainings with costs-per-officer totaling over $13,800. However, neither the report or the General Order appears to include those training costs under the Fiscal Impact for the relevant types of equipment. Furthermore, SPD does not appear to include the cost of personnel time in tabulating that total annual cost for each type of equipment, nor does it include the costs for transportation, storage, upgrades and other ongoing costs. While we have noticed that multiple law enforcement agencies who have unceremoniously tweaked their total costs to exclude this data, such tweaking appears as a coordinated effort to mislead the public and their governing bodies in such a manner that is both unethical and illegal, which only complaints of noncompliance alleged against SPD and validating the reasons for community members to not trust SPD statements or reporting.The Commission recommends the City Council amend this General Order to specifically require SPD to include the cost of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and any other ongoing costs in its tabulation for the total annual costs and fiscal impacts for each type of military equipment listed in its MEU policy and annual reports. Failure to include this information increases the likelihood for costly litigation against the City that will ultimately be paid by City taxpayers (not their elected representatives or appointed city staff) for SPD's refusal to take their legal obligations seriously. 13 GO 410.06 Military Equipment UseSPD has no written policy or process for decommissioning, liquidating, or disposing of equipment or weapons that a governing body has prohibited from use among civilian populations.
Amend GO 410.06: Establish a process for removing military weapons or equipment that are banned, prohibited, or no longer permitted for use by SPD.SPD does not appear to have a policy for decommissioning military equipment it no longer uses or is prohibited by Federal agencies. The Commission recommends creating a policy for clearing its inventory of banned military equipment, weapons, or munitions as they occur under future administrations and governments.
Ad Hoc Committee #2: Surveillance Ad Hoc Committee - 2022Recommendation Number General Order Section Referenced (if any)Description of the Issue/Problem Recommendation Rationale/SupportSacramento Police Department Response____________ City Department Response (if needed)City Attorney Budgetary Considerations 1 GO 320.03 Computer Data Security SystemsGO 375.01 Use of Facial Recognition TechnologyGO 510.05 ShotSpotter FlexGO 525.03 In-Car CameraGO 525.05 Closed-Circuit Television CamerasGO 525.07 Body Worn CameraGO 525.08 Automated License Plate Observation DevicesGO 525.09 Unmanned Aerial SystemsGO 531.06 Stolen Vehicle Tracking System Current storage of audio and visual data on private citizens is excessive and far exceeds any standard investigation period for most crimes.
Changes to Existing Policy(s): Establish clear limits on the storage of all audio and video recordings or other bulk data targeting private citizens through all surveillance technology or programs to no more than 2 years.Sacramento residents and communities across the country have raised significant concerns about the transparency and effectiveness of warrantless surveillance and bulk data collection by government entities and private corporations. Current policy allows SPD to retain all audio recording and related information for vast periods of time (as much as 7 years) that exceed any standard period for investigation into violent crimes. In many instances, SPD also restricts the public release of this information to a single individual (“the captain of the Office of the Chief”) without any meaningful oversight. The longer such bulk data is retained by the department, the higher the likelihood for misuse or misconduct that violates the privacy rights enjoyed by Sacramento residents.These conditions raise important questions about what incentive SPD has to complete investigations in a timely manner when such long periods of data storage are permitted. What public safety purpose is ultimately served from having surveillance devices hidden in unknown areas of the city and whose data collections of private citizens are stored for almost a decade? How can we measure the outcome from surveillance tactics and programs when community members, including this Commission, do not have access to clear metrics for success or comparative and demographic reporting to review? The Commission recommends amending SPD's General Orders related to surveillance technology to limit the storage of all audio or video recording to no more than 2 years. The Commission is willing to consider objective data and information from SPD should they choose to make it available to us, but at this time we have not seen any indication they Unfortunately, we have not had that conversation yet and the Department no longer provides a liaison who can answer our questions at public meetings. 2 GO 525.03 In-Car CameraThe In-Car Camera (ICC) does not capture the moment an SPD officer decides to initiate a pre-textual stop or investigation. Current policy does not require SPD personnel to state their justifications or certain factors for self-initiating investigations for the audio record.
Amend GO 525.03: Require SPD officers to activate the In-Car Camera (ICC) system as soon as investigative purposes are self-initiated, including but not limited to when an officer is following a suspicious vehicle or subject before Light Control is activated. Immediately upon manual or automatic activation of the ICC system, SPD officers should audibly state their name, badge number, and the factors for initiating an investigation or a vehicle pursuit.
The moments preceding a police officer's action to initiate an investigation or stop a person based on their reasonable suspicions are important for understanding the officer's pretext and justifications which led to their action in the first place. Nowhere can this be more consequential than inside the officer's vehicle, which contains numerous video and audio recording devices to capture those actions, disposition, and conduct of all parties involved in the encounter. SPD's ICC system has 4 automatic activation triggers: when emergency lights are activated, when GPS speed reaches 90mph, when a collision is detected, and a fourth activator that is redacted from public view for reasons unknown. The ICC system is also manually activated, but only requires an officer to activate it "as soon as practical" when making any field contact or self-initiated investigations, which is unclear and ambiguous without requiring officers to state for audio/video record their justifications or suspicions for initiating contact in the first place.The Commission recommends amending GO 525.03 to specifically require SPD officers to activate the ICC system as soon as investigative purposes are self-initiated, including when officers are following a suspicious vehicle or subject before Light Control is activated. Immediately upon manual or automatic activation of the ICC system, SPD officers should explicitly state their name, badge number, and the factors for initiating an investigation or a vehicle pursuit so that it is capture in the audio recording.3 GO 320.03 Computer Data Security SystemsGO 375.01 Use of Facial Recognition TechnologyGO 410.09 Use of Communication EquipmentGO 510.05 ShotSpotter FlexGO 525.03 In-Car CameraGO 525.05 Closed-Circuit Television CamerasGO 525.07 Body Worn CameraGO 525.08 Automated License Plate Observation DevicesGO 525.09 Unmanned Aerial SystemsGO 531.06 Stolen Vehicle Tracking System There is no publicly-available disciplinary matrix that details how SPD officers are held accountable for use of surveillance technology, equipment tampering, or other forms of misconduct.
Adopt a new General Order: Establish a zero-tolerance policy for the offenses below (i.e., to protect the public and maintain the integrity of the department, a sustained finding will result in termination of employment): 1. Tampering with or modifying the ICC system.2. Unauthorized destruction of original recordings or copies thereof made for court or other review purposes.3. Improper use of communications database.Any complaints alleging misuse of surveillance technology should require an immediate investigation by OPSA to be conducted simultaneously with any Internal Affairs Department (IAD) investigation.
The Commission has long cited a lack of progressive disciplinary matrix for holding SPD personnel accountable in prior recommendations, which has been corroborated by the California Attorney General's office. We understand that SPD claims some of these recommendations are already in practice at SPD, and we welcome the Department to show us this policy when it is ready. Nonetheless, the Commission recommends that SPD explicitly incorporate these items into its General Orders to ensure the SPD maintains integrity within the department and for the public to see how the department holds its officers accountable to SPD standards.Some existing GOs are also ambiguous in their language about improper uses or how they are disciplined. For example, G.O. 410.09's Rule 12.2(s) does not specify what defines unauthorized usage of the City's communication equipment including its CAD / RMS system. This ambiguity leaves too much room for misuse of city equipment, which has been reported by many community members who have reported SPD officers they have never met referring to them publicly by name as a means of intimidation. 4 GO 525.03 In-Car CameraThe period for ICC data storage is not equal to current policy concerning data storage for audio and visual recordings of private citizens.
Amend GO 525.03(H): Require SPD to maintain original recordings produced by the ICC system for a specified period that is more than or equal to the data storage period for audio and visual recordings targeting private citizens. Original recordings and any copies made for court or other review purposes should be presereved until statute of limitations for bringing personal injury lawsuits, Section 1983 action, or all other litigation, including the appeals process, is completed. The policy should also state that original recordings and copies made are the property of the City of Sacramento that is maintained by the Department.
As current policies that allow SPD store audio and visual recordings of private citizens for periods up to 7 years, the storage period for original ICC recordings relevant to SPD personnel is significantly less--up to 18 months from the date of creation. This affords SPD personnel a higher degree of privacy protection than that of private citizens they are sworn to protect and serve, which contributes to the current level of distrust and resentment held by members of the public. The Commission recommends amending GO 525.03 to require original recordings by the ICC system be mainted for a specified period that is more than or equal to the data storage period for audio and visual recordings targeting private citizens permitted in other policies. Specifically, the Department should preserve all original recordings and any copies made for court or other review purposes until the statue of limitations for bringing personal injury lawsuits, Section 1983 civl rights actions, and all other litigation, including the appeals process, is completed. Additionally, the policy should state clearly that original recordings and copies made are the property of the City of Sacramento, which is maintained by SPD as one of its public agencies.5 GO 510.05 ShotSpotter FlexShotSpotter incident reports are not published consistently or in a way that is easily accessible for the public to review.
Amend GO 510.05(A): Require SPD to publicly disclose ShotSpotter Flex incident reports on a quarterly basis. Quarterly reports should be compiled using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting to be shared directly with the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the SCPRC, and made publicly available via the SPD Transparency page on the City's website. Quarterly reports should include, but are not limited to, the following data:(a) the geographical locations where gunfire is detected(b) the total number of shooting incidents documented in each period, including the number shooters and shots fired(c) the number of patrol units that respond to each gunfire incident(d) the number of actual shootings identified from ShotSpotter Flex detection(e) the number of open and closed investigations for each period(f) the number of arrests made from ShotSpotter Flex detections, including demographics such as race, age, and sex There is consistent community concern of over-policing in Black or Hispanic neighborhoods, which at least 3 separate studies commissioned by SPD over the last 20 years has shown confirmed with significant racial disparaties in its stops, arrests, and use of force rates for Black and Hispanic residents. ShotSpotter is currently deployed in 3 geographic areas where neighborhood populations are predominantly Black and/or Hispanic. While SPD has previously argued that higher rates of gun violence and crime in these neighborhoods necessitates an increased police presence that includes surveillance, none of the data presented by the Department has demonstrated the success of ShotSpotter to prevent gun-related crimes or at least reduce their rates within these neighborhoods. In order to verify the outcomes of ShotSpotter and the Department's efforts to prevent gun violence, the Commission recommends providing regular gunfire incident reports on a quarterly basis at minimum. Reports should use comparative reporting and demographic reporting methods that are shared directly with OPSA, the Inspector General, and the Commission in addition to being publicly available via the Department's transparency page. 6 GO 510.05 ShotSpotter FlexShotSpotter Flex is expensive technology that research has found to be statistically ineffective and may have adverse effects on the behavior and responses of police officers.
Changes to Existing Policy(s): Terminate SPD's contract with SST, Inc. to use its ShotSpotter Flex technology.In February 2015, the City Council first agreed to a contract with SST, Inc. for a single deployment of its ShotSpotter Flex gunfire detection system for a single year at a cost up to $150,000. As of December 2022, the City Council has amended and extended this agreement to deploy in 3 geographic locations through June 14, 2025 at a cost up to $4,333,144. Since its inception, ShotSpotter Flex technology has been frequently criticized by law enforcement experts, criminal justice researchers and community members alike for both its inaccurate detections and inefficient outcomes, which has primarily served to increase harmful police interactions in targeted neighborhoods with mostly Black or Hispanic residents. In several studies on ShotSpotter in Chicago, nearly ninety percent (88.7%) of police responses to ShotSpotter alerts found no incidents involving a gun. According to the most recent staff report from July 2022, the ShotSpotter system costs the City of Sacramento an annual total of $509,600 which is only partially supported by an annual allocation of $314,600 in Multi-Year Operating Project resources, leaving an annual $195,000 funding gap that requires asset forfeiture resources and grant funding to maintain. When we added the average personnel cost of 12.0 full-time equivalent Police Officer positions (at a 2021 average pay $95,715, or $200,529 in total pay and benefits according to Transparent California) budgeted to respond to ShotSpotter activations, the annual cost of using the ShotSpotter system exceeds $2,915,953. Considering the 3-year projected cost for maintaining all 3 ShotSpotter systems of $1,528,800 ($585,000 which is unfunded), in addition to the projected average costs for SPD personnel of $7,219,060, the City could expect to pay at least $8,747,860 for full use of the ShotSpotter systems over the duration of this contract agreement.SPD has touted the ShotSpotter system as "valuable assets when responding to and investigating gun violence," which raises the question: What was accomplished from this system? Based on 6,737 ShotSpotter activations or alerts reported by SPD from June 2015 to May 2022, seventy-three percent (73%) resulted in no reports. From the reports directly attributed to ShotSpotter, only four percent (4%) resulted in arrests and 8 percent (8.5%) resulted in firearms seized. According to the Department's grant application from July 2022, SPD reported seizing 67 firearms and making 58 arrests over a 3-year average (January 2019 - May 2022). By this measurement, the resulting efficiency of ShotSpotter in Sacramento during this period is estimated at an average cost of $22,818 per firearm seized and $26,359 per arrest (not including the cost of personnel time and salaries). After 7 years of its deployment, the data we've reviewed begs the question: how might the City invest its resources in meaningfully addressing the underlying causes of gun violence and crime compared with the estimated cost it has spent responding to gun violence and crime after it happens? Given the City's predicted budgetary shortfalls through Fiscal Year 2026/27 and measured with ShotSpotter's current cost, rate of effectiveness, the consistent need to secure additional resources for its unfunded costs, the Commission recommends terminating SPD's contract with SST, Inc. as soon as possible to allow for increased investment in programs and services that better serve Sacramento communities -- ideally during the FY2023/24 Budget cycle. At minimum, the Commission recommends allowing this contract to expire on June 14, 2025 without extensions.Sources:(1) Grant Application Fiscal Year 2022 - Edward Byrnes Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program - Local Solicitation. File ID: 2022-01316. July 19, 2022. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=5315&meta_id=690128 (2) Grant Application Fiscal Year 2021 - Edward Byrnes Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG). File ID: 2021-00796. July 27, 2021. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=5006&meta_id=638098 (3) Supplemental Agreement: Gunfire Detection System. File ID: 2020-00579. June 16, 2020. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4641&meta_id=586680 (4) Supplemental Agreement: Gunfire Detection System. File ID: 2019-00767. June 25, 2019. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4429&meta_id=558957 (5) Supplemental Agreement: Acoustic Gunfire Detection System. File ID: 2018-00835. June 12, 2018. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4210&meta_id=526349(6) Supplemental Agreement: Gunfire Detection System. File ID: 2017-01212. September 19, 2017. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4047&meta_id=502505 (7) Supplemental Agreement: Gunfire Detection System. File ID: 2017-00964. August 11, 2017. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=4026&meta_id=500274(8) Agreement: Gunfire Detection System. Report # 2016-00491. May 17, 2016. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3813&meta_id=468788(9) Purchase Agreement: Live Shot Monitoring System. Report # 2015-00120. February 17, 2015. https://sacramento.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=22&clip_id=3556&meta_id=431113