Law and Legislation Committee
August 20, 2024

City of Sacramento Page 1

LAW AND LEGISLATION COMMITTEE
Katie Valenzuela, Chair, District 4
Caity Maple, District 5
Eric Guerra, District 6
Rick Jennings, II, District 7

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 Complex
915 I Street Sacramento, CA 95814
Published by the Office of the City Clerk
(916) 808-7200

CORRESPONDENCE

Description of Attached: Correspondence received after Agenda was published.

For the Meeting of: Tuesday, August 20, 2024 at 9:00 a.m.

Agenda Item: Discussion Item 4

4. Ordinance Repealing Ordinance No. 2023-0018 And Adopting a Military Equipment Use Policy

File ID: 2024-01345

Location: Citywide

Recommendation: 1) Review an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 2023-0018 and adopting a renewed Military Equipment Use Policy; 2) review the Annual Military Equipment Use Report; and 3) pass a Motion forwarding the Ordinance and the Annual Military Equipment Use Report to City Council for consideration.

Contact: Clayton Buchanan, Police Captain, (916) 808-0824, [email protected], Police Department, Office of the Chief

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2024 MEU Community Recommendation #1 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 8/12/2024 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 8/16/2024 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use Community requested more transparency in how military equipment is used and acquired. Amend GO 410.06: Restore previous language removed from the Purpose, Policy, and Philosophy sections of the 2023 policy approved by City Council to reflect the following: PURPOSE The purpose of this policy is to establish guidelines for the funding, acquisition, and use of military equipment, as defined in Government Code § 7070, and to fulfill the obligations set forth in Chapter 12.8 (commencing with § 7070) to Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code, relating to military equipment. These obligations include, but are not limited to, obtaining approval to seek funding for, acquire, or use specific items deemed to be military equipment, as well as requirements related to compliance, annual reporting, cataloging, and complaints regarding these items. POLICY It shall be the policy of the Sacramento Police Department (SPD) to observe legally enforceable safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures in place to ensure the full protection of the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used. All military equipment shall only be used in accordance with this order and within the parameters of associated SPD orders and manuals that governs each particular type of military equipment. PHILOSOPHY The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities may impact the public’s safety and welfare. The public has a right to know about any funding, acquisition, or use of military equipment by local government officials, as well as a right to participate in any government agency’s decision to fund, acquire, or use such equipment. Decisions regarding whether and how military equipment is funded, acquired, or used should give strong consideration to the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties, and should be based on meaningful public input. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Long before AB 481, community members have consistently demanded a good-faith commitment from SPD to transparency and accountability in all aspects of its policies, practices, and procedures. Following the 2023 Community Engagement Forums discussing its MEU policy, SPD made good efforts to demonstrate this commitment in revising the language of GO 410.06, which included a Philosophy statement, in addition to a detailed Purpose and Policy statement, that helped to ground the MEU policy back to its fundamental service to the safety and welfare of community members while also providing greater transparency into the Department’s underlying governing culture. In making good to address community desire for less technical or legal jargon (i.e., more “plain-speak”), the Commission is concerned that SPD’s response over-corrected by removing the Philosophy section and shortening the purpose and policy statements in ways that may provide less transparency and undermine the Department’s good-faith commitments. We recommend these sections be restored to their prior language, with only the minimal adjustments.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2024 MEU Community Recommendation #2 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 8/12/2024 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 8/16/2024 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use Community expressed concern with reduced transparency in authorized use or approved situations for deploying military equipment from prior versions of the adopted policy. Amend GO 410.06(F): Require SPD to list the following information in both its GO 410.06 and its annual military equipment use report: 1. The current quantity and ongoing costs per unit for each item of military equipment 2. The approved situations, acceptable uses, and restricted uses for each item of military equipment, as referenced under its associated general order and manual. 3. The total annual costs and fiscal impact associated with each type of military equipment, including but not limited to, the costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and other ongoing costs in its calculation. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Community members expressed concerned with previous information that was provided in prior annual use reports and the written policy itself. While SPD made significant efforts to provide greater transparency in reporting its current inventory and usage of military equipment, the Commission’s review was able to corroborate the following information was removed from the GO: • Current quantities for each item of military equipment — removed from GO 410.06 but listed in the 2024 Annual Report. • Annual costs or “fiscal impact” of each type of military equipment — removed from GO 410.06 but listed in the 2024 Annual Report • Authorized uses and “approved situations” — removed from the GO and replaced with a statement that refers to General Orders and Reference Manuals listed on its City webpage: https://www.cityofsacramento.gov/police/police-transparency/policy-and-procedures As stated in previous recommendations and expressed by community, we expect AB 481 to be the floor and not the ceiling of SPD’s compliance. The Commission considers this information to critical for transparency and independent oversight that ensures SPD’s compliance with the minimum requirements and intent of AB 481. Fortunately, SPD has already provided this information in prior versions of GO 410.06 and currently provides it across multiple documents, ensuring this recommendation is a simple matter of consolidation.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2024 MEU Community Recommendation #3 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 8/12/2024 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 8/16/2024 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use Community members desire more transparency in knowing what situations military equipment is necessary, how it ensures civilian safety compared with officer safety, and why it is cost-effective compared with available alternatives. SPD provides no written justification to explain why it needs military equipment or how it meets AB 481's minimum requirements. Amend GO 410.06(C): Add the verbatim language of AB 481 to specify the minimum requirements for City Council to approve a military equipment use policy, using the following language: 2. In accordance with Government Code § 7071(d)(1), the governing body shall only approve General Order 410.06 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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Assembly Bill 481 is not a polite suggestion – it is statutory code that requires all law enforcement agencies and governing bodies to follow and uphold in public policy, practice, and conduct. AB 481 established the Sacramento City Council as the governing body responsible for, which many only approve a military equipment use policy for the Sacramento Police Department it meets all four of the following minimum requirements: 1. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. 2. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. 3. 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. 4. Previously owned military equipment and previous equipment use complied with the MEU policy that was in effect at the time. Or, if prior uses did not comply, then the new policy fixes nonconforming uses and ensures future compliance. As the governing body, it is the City Council’s responsibility to get answers to the pertinent questions that would prompt SPD to sufficiently explain how it complies with the law’s minimum requirements. These include, but are not limited to: • What situations is the deployment or use of this military equipment necessary for ensuring the safety of both officers and civilians? Do reasonable alternatives exist that may achieve the same objective?

• How will the proposed military equipment use policy safeguard the public’s safety and welfare while also ensuring their civil rights and civil liberties are protected? How does the police department deter or prevent violations of this policy through legally enforceable means? • Why is the proposed purchase or acquisition of military equipment necessary within the current budget cycle? What alternative equipment or practices has the Police Department explored which move prove just as effective at achieving both officer and civilian safety while also being more cost-effective? • Where have changes been made in this policy that fix past misuses, or at minimum address complaints alleged under previous military equipment use policies? How will these changes ensure future compliance?

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2024 MEU Community Recommendation #4 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 8/12/2024 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 8/16/2024 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use Community members desire more transparency in what military equipment is currently being used by SPD, including clear definitions that are more “plain-speak” and less technical jargon. Amend GO 410.06(A & F): Include the definitions for each time of military equipment currently used in SPD’s 2024 Annual Military Equipment Use Report currently listed under GO 410.06 Appendix A. Add definitions for “kinetic energy projectiles” (Less Lethal Weapons Systems) and “chemical agents” (Tear Gas, Pepper Balls, Pepper Spray) as defined under Assembly Bill 48, using the following language: A. DEFINITIONS 8. KINETIC ENERGY PROJECTILE – any type of projectile designed as less lethal that is launched from any device that may cause physical injury through the transfer of kinetic energy and blunt force trauma. This term includes, but is not limited to, items commonly referred to as rubber bullets, plastic bullets, beanbag rounds, and foam tipped plastic rounds. This order applies to several items of SPD’s military equipment that meet this definition, which can be found under Category 14 (Projectile Launching Platforms and Munitions). 9. CHEMICAL AGENT – any chemical that can rapidly produce sensory irritation or disabling physical effects in humans, which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure. This term includes, but is not limited to, chloroacetophenone tear gas (commonly known as CN tear gas), chlorobenzalmalononitrile gas (commonly known as CS gas), and projectile items commonly referred to as pepper balls, pepper spray, or oleoresin capsicum (commonly referred to as OC). This order applies to several items of SPD’s military equipment that meet this definition, which can be found under Categories 12b (Chemical Agents), 12c (PepperBall Projectiles), and 14b (40mm Munitions). SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Apart from Assembly Bill 481, SPD currently provides no reference to Assembly Bill 48 which limits the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents even as such weapons are classified as military equipment in its inventory. Though it referenced under Reference Manual 532.11 (First Amendment Assembly Manual), the Commission believes Assembly Bill 48 should be referenced as well, which includes defining what these terms mean.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2024 MEU Community Recommendation #5 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 8/12/2024 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 8/16/2024 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD policy does not detail the limits or prohibitions of military equipment use in civilian settings. Amend GO 410.06(D): Add verbatim language of Assembly Bill 48 to specify the clear limits and conditions for using kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents, using the following language is recommended: D. AUTHORIZED USES OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT 3. In accordance with Penal Code § 13625, kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents (Less Lethal Weapon Systems) governed under this policy and associated General Orders and Reference Manuals may not be used to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration. 4. Less Lethal Weapons Systems may only be deployed by enforcement personnel received training on their proper use by the Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training for crowd control if the use is objectively reasonable to defend against a threat to life or serious bodily injury to any individual, including any officer, or to bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control, and only when the following requirements have been met or failed: a. De-escalation techniques or other alternatives to force have been attempted, when objectively reasonable, and have failed. b. Repeated, audible announcements are made announcing the intent to use kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents and the type to be used, when objectively reasonable to do so. The announcements shall be made from various locations, if necessary, and delivered in multiple languages, if appropriate. c. Persons are given an objectively reasonable opportunity to disperse and leave the scene. d. An objectively reasonable effort has been made to identify persons engaged in violent acts and those who are not, and kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents are targeted toward those individuals engaged in violent acts. Projectiles shall not be aimed indiscriminately into a crowd or group of persons. e. Kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents are used only with the frequency, intensity, and in a manner that is proportional to the threat and objectively reasonable. f. Officers shall minimize the possible incidental impact of their use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents on bystanders, medical personnel, journalists, or other unintended targets. g. An objectively reasonable effort has been made to extract individuals in distress. h. Medical assistance is promptly provided, if properly trained personnel are present, or procured, for injured persons, when it is reasonable and safe to do so. i. Kinetic energy projectiles shall not be aimed at the head, neck, or any other vital organs. j. Kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents shall not be used by any law enforcement agency solely due to any of the following: i. A violation of an imposed curfew. ii. A verbal threat. iii. Noncompliance with a law enforcement directive.

k. If the chemical agent to be deployed is tear gas, only a commanding officer at the scene of the assembly, protest, or demonstration may authorize the use of tear gas. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Apart from Assembly Bill 481, SPD currently provides no reference to Assembly Bill 48 which limits the use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents even as such weapons are classified as military equipment in its inventory. Though it referenced under Reference Manual 532.11 (First Amendment Assembly Manual), the Commission believes Assembly Bill 48 should be referenced as well, which includes referencing the restrictions on such weapons being used to disperse First Amendment activities (including assemblies, demonstrations, and protests), and the required checklist of conditions that must be met before the Department is authorized to use the equipment.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2024 MEU Community Recommendation #6 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 8/12/2024 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 8/16/2024 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use Community members desire more transparency in reasons and justifications for why SPD needs to purchase military equipment and how it aligns with the minimum requirements set by Assembly Bill 481. Amend GO 410.06(C): Add specific language requiring SPD to provide a written justifications for each item of military equipment that SPD proposes to purchase, acquire or procure that explains the necessity for its use, the Department’s need within the current fiscal year, and how it aligns with the minimum requirements of Assembly Bill 481. These written justifications should be submitted using a questionnaire format that answers the following questions: 1) What situations is the requested equipment necessary for safeguarding the safety of both officers and members of the public? How will its deployment or use accomplish this objective? 2) Why is this equipment necessary to purchase within the current fiscal year? How many times was this type of equipment used within most recent annual reporting period? 3) What, if any, reasonable alternatives to this equipment were explored that may achieve the same objective of both officer and civilian safety? What were the costs compared with the requested equipment? 4) What Police Department policies govern the deployment or use of the requested equipment? How do these policies serve to safeguard the public’s civil rights and civil liberties from potential misuses of the equipment? 5) What (if any) complaints or misuses related to the requested type of military equipment been reported to the Police Department or the Office of Public Safety and Accountability? Is there any pending litigation that has named the Police Department concerning the misuse of this equipment? 6) In response to sustained complaints or litigation settlements, what changes, if any, were made in Department policies to prevent misuse? How will these changes ensure future compliance? Written questionnaires should be attached as an appendix to every draft of its annual military equipment use report within the same 30-days period prior to its annually required community engagement meeting. The written questionnaire should also be attached to any staff reports for the military equipment item that is submitted to City Council for final approval. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Replaces 2022 MEU Recommendation #7. 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2024 MEU Community Recommendation #7 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 8/12/2024 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 8/16/2024 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD's annual military equipment use (MEU) reports omit key metrics and data necessary to meaningfully assess the effectiveness and impact of its military equipment usage. Amend GO 410.06(D): In addition to demographic reporting, require SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative reporting and analysis regarding the usage trends and fiscal impact of its military equipment. The measurable data for comparative analysis includes, but is not limited to: 1. Total number of times each type of military equipment and munition was used within the annual reporting period, including number of munition rounds fired. 2. Total number of uses for each type of military equipment, including the demographics of whom it was used against compared with the previous year. 3. Total cost for all proposed purchases, acquisitions, or orders of military equipment the Department may be request compared with the previous year, including the estimated costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and other ongoing costs in its calculation. 4. Annual fiscal impact of its current military equipment inventory compared withing the overall police budget, using total dollar amounts and percentages. This fiscal impact should include costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and other ongoing costs of the current inventory in its calculation. The Department should continue using less legal jargon to allow the data to be accessible to members of the public and City Council, using more widely known synonyms for more technical terms and establishing clear definitions for words without the appropriate synonyms. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Improves upon 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #4. The City and SPD frequently mentions their desire for data-driven policies, and the Commission appreciates the inclusion of some demographic data in its annual report and summary for the community forums. The Department has made critical steps in providing greater transparency in demographic data from its 2022 and 2023 annual MEU reports, including a detailed chart of 210 critical incidents where it was used. However, these annual reports continue to miss the comparative reporting requested by SCPRC and the City Council that are necessary to meaningfully evaluate and measure the impacts of SPD's military equipment usage.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2024 MEU Community Recommendation #8 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 8/12/2024 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 8/16/2024 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use The current timeline of the annual inventory and reporting process for military equipment provides is rushed and does not provide enough time for community members, commissioners, or the City Council to meaningfully engage the information or adequately review. Changes to Existing Policies: Establish a clear timeline with specific dates for the annual inventory, usage reporting, community engagement and approval process for SPD’s military equipment that flows with the calendar year. Beginning in 2025, the following timeline is recommended: • December 1 – November 30: SPD’s annual reporting period for military equipment usage begins. • Second Monday in December: SPD’s annual count of its military equipment inventory begins. The inventory process should conclude within 30 days. • Second Friday in February: SPD’s annual military equipment usage report, policy changes, and proposed acquisitions is drafted. Annual report should be submitted to SCPRC for review within 15 days. • Second Monday in March: SCPRC discusses annual usage report and feedback to SCPRC prior to publishing. Agenda item will consider Commissioner and SPD input regarding potential changes to the draft and timeline for community engagement meeting(s) related to military equipment uses. • Second Monday in April: SPD and SCPRC discusses finalized draft and confirms community engagement meeting date during its public meeting. • Fourth Friday in April: SPD publishes annual usage report draft, policy changes, and proposed acquisitions to its city webpage. Annual report and proposed acquisitions should be attached to staff reports to City Council in time for City’s annual budget process. Citywide outreach and promotion to local media and Council networks begins for annual community engagement meeting. • May 1 – July 31: SCPRC hosts and facilitates annual community engagement meeting(s) as approved by SCPRC. Commission completes its report and recommendations no later than July 31. • Second Monday in August: SCPRC discusses and approves its community engagement report. Submitted to City Council’s Law & Legislation for review prior to scheduling for its monthly public meeting. • September 1 – October 31: SPD presents annual military equipment usage report, policy changes, and proposed acquisitions to City Council’s Law & Legislation Committee. SCPRC presents prior to or after SPD presentation. Submitted to full City Council for final discussion and approval. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Since Assembly Bill 481 came into effect, the annual process for counting, reporting, reviewing the use of military equipment in Sacramento has felt rushed and misaligned with existing city timelines, processes, and practices. Every year, the process for SPD to count its inventory, draft its annual usage report, and participate in community engagement meetings has been delayed until weeks before a city-interpreted deadline. The SCPRC has long emphasized the need for more time to adequately assess and consider the impacts of SPD’s military equipment use in community neighborhoods, and even the Mayor and City Council members have expressed disappointment with the short turnaround time they have to sufficiently review and consider community input and SPD needs before approving complex policy changes alongside tens of thousands of dollars’ worth of additional equipment within the span of a couple weeks.

While Government Code § 7071(a)(2) set the timeframe for approving a law enforcement agency’s written policy after May 2022, and Government Code § 7072(a) sets the timeframe for annual military equipment use reports to be approved within one year of approve, nothing within these sections precludes the Mayor and City Council from establishing a new timeline for the annual process to better align with the city’s existing processes and procedures. Therefore, the Commission recommends establishing a clear timeline with specific dates for all parties to fulfill their roles within the annual process set by Assembly Bill 481. While the timeline will be subject to discussion with the City Attorney’s Office and SPD, the new timeline is recommended to begin as early as 2025.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #1 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD does not include in its reporting when military equipment is deployed. Amend GO 410.06(D): Require SPD to track and report the total number of military equipment deployments within the City's jurisdiction separately from the total number of "reportable uses" of force or discharges of military weapons in its annual MEU reports. All procedures for documenting the deployment of military equipment should be clearly defined. Any transparency standards should require reporting any deployments visible to the community, and not be limited to only uses of force or discharging the weapon. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #2. AB 481, requires that a Use Report include “A summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.” The current Annual Use Report from SPD does not list how or when the equipment was deployed in a critical incident, only "reportable uses" of force when military weapons are discharged during the incident. The Department classified 86 incidents of the 248,983 contacts in the last year as "reportable uses," with the reportable ratio to all contacts being 4:10,000. Members of the public considered this to be "an outrageous under-reporting" that "obviously conceals a great deal of police from accountability."

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #2 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD policy does not detail the limits or prohibitions of military equipment use in civilian settings. Amend GO 410.06: Add a standalone section(s) to the General Order that clearly states when and where military equipment or munitions are prohibited for deployment, use or discharge. Add written language that clearly states the actual and inclusive allowed uses for each type of military equipment under its authorized usage section. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #6. 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. 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. Given this history and the questions these incidents raise, it is important for the City Council to require SPD to clearly define authorize and 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. 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_SUMMARY ii. 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=en iv. 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=612705 v. 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)

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #3 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD'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): Remove all language under each section authorizing military equipment deployment or usage in situations that includes "crowd control" or "circumstances where a tactical advantage can be obtained." SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #6. A crowd is not in itself a danger to life or property. Furthermore, the First Amendment protects the freedom of assembly. The policy already authorizes the use of the equipment against dangerous, and/or combative individuals, or during riots or civil unrest incidents. Community members that the broad use of “crowd control” could allow police to deploy weapons to intimidate or use in circumstance that do not warrant the use of the equipment. The Commission agrees: SPD and City Council must revisit the necessity of military equipment for “crowd control” purposes.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #4 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD's annual military equipment use (MEU) reports are unclear, lack context, or omit key metrics necessary to meaningfully assess how its military equipment is being used. Amend GO 410.06(D): Require 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 against. 3. In what context the equipment is used. SPD to produce its annual MEU reports using less legal jargon to allow it to be accessible to members of the public and City Council, using more widely known synonyms for more technical terms and establishing clear definitions for words without the appropriate synonyms. Reports should be published alongside summarized pages that provide all measurable data, using comparative and demographic reporting, that includes, but is not limited to: 1. Total number of critical incidents where military equipment was used or deployed in a table or chart format, including the number of officers and civilians involved in these incidents. 2. Total annual cost of its current military equipment inventory that includes the costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and other ongoing costs in its calculation. 3. Projected amount and cost for all military equipment that may be requested compared with the previous year, including the costs of personnel time, training, transportation, maintenance, storage, upgrades, and other ongoing costs in its calculation. 4. Fiscal impact of this cost upon the overall police budget, using total dollar amounts and percentages. 5. List of dates and locations for all community outreach and engagement events involving military equipment uses or demonstrations, including the total cost for these events. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #2. 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.

Using the information contained in the annual report, City Council is required to “only approve a military equipment use policy pursuant to AB 481 if it determines all of the following: 1. The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety. 2. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. 3. 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. 4. 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, and the Commission appreciates the inclusion of some demographic data in its annual report and summary for the community forums. However, the 2022 annual MEU report is still missing key metrics and comparative reporting requested by SCPRC and the City Council that would allow for meaningfully evaluation and measurement of the impacts of SPD's military equipment usage. The current policy language is still 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. 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 to deploy military equipment.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #5 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use Community engagement regarding SPD's military equipment use policy is poorly promoted. Changes in Existing Policy(s): Establish a formal and standardized process for soliciting community input and incorporating feedback into annual updates of SPD's military equipment use policy. The process should be written into GO 410.06 and include clear timelines for when SPD opens its community survey and when SCPRC will host no less than 3 community input forums before the annual report goes to City Council. The process should adopt the SCPRC's proposed Community Outreach Plan and promote all community surveys and input forums through coordinated outreach campaigns utilizing the City’s website, mailing list and social media accounts, including those used for SPD and City Councilmembers. The community survey should be open to the public no later than 4 months prior the Department's annual deadline for approving MEU policy updates (currently September 13th). The community input forums should be conducted no later 3 months prior to approving MEU policy updates. All feedback and policy recommendations captured from the survey and input forums should be included in a final report completed by SCPRC, published on the City's website, and presented to City Council before the annual MEU report goes to City Council and before adoption of any MEU policy updates. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Expands upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #2. When citywide policing changes are made, there are few venues for the public to voice concerns or engage directly with the police department or City outside of the two-minute public comment afforded at City Council meetings. This became clear at the community forums, where a lot of pent-up frustrations were expressed, but once voiced and acknowledged, gave space for thoughtful discussion between community members and SPD officers. While the forums were specifically designed to solicit feedback on the proposed MEU policy, it was clear that there is a desire by city residents to be engaged more deeply and thoughtfully on policing in general. One takeaway frequently expressed by the public was the need for SCPRC to have more authority to review policies, procedures, and data on a timely basis. The Commission agrees: the public needs earlier and more visible public notice of future community input meetings about the MEU report and policy, which includes sharing meeting notices, SPD’s draft of its annual MEU Report, planned procurements, and policy updates at least ninety (90) to one-hundred twenty (120) days in advance as suggested by community members.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #6 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use AB 481 is clear that there must be a mechanism to ensure compliance with the military equipment use policy, including which independent person or entities have oversight authority and what legally enforceable sanctions are put in place for violations of the policy. Changes to Existing Policy(s): Designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General (IG), and the SCPRC for ensuring SPD’s compliance with this policy and AB 481. OPSA and IG should be responsible for investigating any individual violations of the MEU policy. SCPRC should have authority to review and provide recommendations for remedying nonconforming uses to SPD, the Mayor and City Council before the adoption of any changes to the MEU policy. Require SPD to publish its disciplinary matrix for all violations under its MEU policy and to publicly report the total number of violations and the disciplinary actions issued in response to policy violations in its annual use reports. Reports should clearly define each infraction and a progressive list of disciplinary actions available for the Department to take against offending officers. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Improves upon 2022 MEU Recommendation #8. AB 481 is clear that a written MEU 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 any oversight entities that are independent from the Department, as well as any legally enforceable sanctions for MEU policy violations. The current MEU policy provides none of these. During the community forums, a common refrain among the public was that SPD cannot self-certify its compliance with AB 481 or the adopted MEU policy and called for independent oversight authority be designated to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General (IG), and the Community Police Review Commission. The public also called for greater accountability in the form of a clear matrix of progressive disciplinary measures for officers violating the MEU policy and command orders, including a chart or listing of disciplinary actions taken year over year. In response to community members, SPD verbally identified the City Council (the "governing body" under AB 481) as an "independent oversight entity" and to whom instances of non-compliance are reported via its annual MEU report. In the MEU policy, SPD’s own Inspections and Standards Unit and Professional Standards Unit are designated as their oversight authorities to refer violations to its Internal Affairs Division. Given all three SPD 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. 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).” Furthermore, SPD has not provided a general disciplinary matrix or minimum baseline for sustained complaints in either the MEU policy or its public list of general

orders. 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. 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. 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.pdf iii. Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 2020 Disciplinary & Accountability Ad Hoc Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #7 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD policy is unclear about the type of chemical agents possessed in its military equipment inventory and does not report the potential hazards to public health or local environments from deployments of chemical agents. Amend GO 410.06(H)(7,12,14): Consolidate all military munitions, grenades, or canisters that deploys any type of chemical agent listed under AB 48 into the "Chemical Agents and Smoke Canisters" category. Under the consolidated category, add language or links to manufacturers' websites that contains information including, but is not limited to: 1. Clear definitions for each type of chemical agent possessed by SPD (i.e., pepper spray, tear gas, smoke cannisters, etc). 2. Any health or environmental hazards from the deployment of each type of chemical agent. 3. Procedures for cleaning up after deployments of chemical agents. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE A key takeaway from community members was the need for greater transparency about the SPD’s inventory and use of chemical agents. Community members want clarity about the type of chemical agents it possesses and information about their chemical make, how SPD or City staff clean up after deploying smoke canisters, flash-bangs or chemical agents which may linger in the air or leave surface residue, as well as any health or environmental dangers from use of this military equipment.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #8 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use Community members would like to see their City Council member participate in the community engagement process related to military equipment use policy. Adopt a New Policy: City Council coordinate directly with SCPRC and SPD to organize community input forum(s) within their respective districts. Each city council member should coordinate with SCPRC Chair and Vice-Chair to either host a community input forum within their respective council district, or at minimum, attend at least one (1) community input forum in a listening capacity within the bounds of the Ralph M. Brown Act. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Throughout all three (3) community forums, the public was unequivocally clear in feeling ignored by their City Council members in past discussions and decisions concerning SPD policies and practices. The Commission noted that only two City Council members attended any of the community forums, and the public frequently questioned whether City Council would listen or act any differently than it has given their absence. As such, the Commission recommends the Mayor and City Council members work with SCPRC should attend at least one of the established community meetings, or host one within their respective districts.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2023 MEU Community Recommendation #9 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 08/14/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD 08/18/2023 APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use Community requested that the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission be given adequate funding and resources for more frequent community engagement outside of monthly meetings. Changes to Existing Policy(s): City Council approve annual funding for SCPRC to continue to engage community directly and more often throughout the year. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE Community expressed a strong desire for regular and more frequent community engagement beyond the annual MEU input sessions. For this year’s community forums, the SCPRC’s Community Outreach Plan called for the City to secure easily accessible venues and offer childcare and refreshments for each meeting, which was well received by the public. The public called for SCPRC and SPD to receive more funding to engage community more frequently. Community also called for the City to use its full resources to better advertise public meetings via their media contacts, existing email list-servs for community leaders and organizations, as well as placement in City Council members’ newsletters, websites, and District meetings.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM
2022 Military Equipment Use #1
DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW

RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT

RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION
GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use
SPD 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.

SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE
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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #2 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD'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 against 3. In what context the equipment is used. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #3 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 580.02 Use of Force GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD language related to military munitions usage is overly vague or too broad. Changes 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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #4 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD 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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #5 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD 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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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 distinguishable 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #6 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD'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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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_SUMMARY ii. 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=en iv. 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=612705 v. 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)

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #7 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD 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 $500 2. Robots 3. Armored Vehicles 4. Long Range Acoustic Devices (LRADs) 5. 40MM Launchers and Rounds 6. 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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #8 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD 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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.pdf iii. Sacramento Community Police Review Commission 2020 Disciplinary & Accountability Ad Hoc Recommendations

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #9 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD 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 LEVELS 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. 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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #10 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use GO 525.09 Unmanned Aerial Systems GO 580.02 Use of Force GO 580.04 Firearms GO 580.10 Use of the Conducted Energy Device (CED) GO 580.12 Less Lethal Weapon Systems GO 580.15 Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Team GO 580.16 SWAT Diversionary Devices GO 580.17 Use of the Long Range Acoustical Device (LRAD) GO 580.18 Deployment of Armored Vehicles RM 532.11 First Amendment Assemblies Manual RM 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). SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #11 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 580.02 Use of Force GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD policy does not explicitly limit or prohibit SPD from using robots or drones as a Use of Force option. Changes 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." SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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 enforcement 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 would justify police using robots or UAS to kill people setting. 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #12 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD 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 of the total annual cost and fiscal impact of each type of military weapon and equipment listed in its inventory and annual reports. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.

RECOMMENDATION SUBMISSION AND RESPONSE FORM 2022 Military Equipment Use #13 DISCUSSED BY SCPRC 3/13/2023 APPROVED AND IMPLEMENTED PENDING FURTHER REVIEW RECEIVED BY SPD APPROVED AND PENDING SPD UNABLE TO IMPLEMENT RETURNED TO SCPRC PARTIAL IMPLEMENTATION DENIED SCPRC RECOMMENDATION GO 410.06 Military Equipment Use SPD 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. SCPRC RECOMMENDATION RATIONALE 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.