By Crescenzo Vellucci
The Vanguard Sacramento Bureau Chief
SACRAMENTO, CA – The city of Sacramento’s Law and Legislation Committee—faced with continuing questions about its military equipment policy often used against non-violent demonstrators—this week unanimously voted to send the policy and report to the full council for consideration.
The Sacramento Police Dept. wants about $360,000 to buy more military grade equipment.
According to a report by CapRadio, “If the council does not approve the policy next month, police will lose the ability to use drones, flashbangs, armored vehicles and other items that government agencies decide need special oversight.”
The police also want monies to use: “Robots,” “Long Range Acoustic Device (LRAD): A high intensity directional acoustic array for long-range, crystal-clear hailing and notification,” “40mm Launchers and Munitions: 40mm launchers…to launch impact rounds, chemical agents, and smoke,” “Less Lethal Shotguns and Munitions: A shotgun used to deploy less lethal shotgun impact rounds,” “canisters of chemical agent or smoke canisters,” a “device that emits loud noise and bright light,” “Chemical Agent and Smoke Canisters: Canisters,” “PepperBall Launchers and Projectiles.”
Residents and City Council members questioned this week “demographic data, miscounting of equipment, and the status of requests either the council or Sacramento Community Police Review Commission previously outlined,” said CapRadio, noting a state law—Assembly Bill 481 —requires police to get annual council approval to fund, acquire and use items classified as military equipment.
While the SPD’s 200-page report notes just a few incidents involving violent crime, it does not apparently address how much of the military has or can be used to respond to demonstrations and other 1st Amendment protected activities, such as protests against policy brutality, and racist police attacks.
The “less-than-lethal” munitions cited repeatedly in the report have, over the last several years, led to hundreds of false arrests and injuries to demonstrators, costing taxpayers millions of dollars as a result of civil rights lawsuits, according to social justice groups.
Mackenzie Wilson, an organizer with Decarcerate Sacramento and longtime social justice reform advocate, said the policy only complies with the loosest interpretation of the law, in a CapRadio interview.
“We’re all very concerned about the harmful outcomes that will result from a policy that asks for additional funding with virtually no justification and doesn’t require tighter restrictions, doesn’t take into account the well-researched recommendations given by an expert commission and is not inspected by an independent oversight body,” Wilson said in the meeting. “These are all things that were named last year and here we are again having the same conversation.”
Deputy Chief Norman Leong said police are planning to make a few revisions the commission requested last year, including police “will not request equipment federally banned for law enforcement use and adding a reference to oversight from the Office of Public Safety and Accountability and the review commission,” CapRadio reported.
The police department has asked the council to approve new purchases of about “$360,000 worth of military equipment — including restocking and replacing the existing supply, along with adding new items — and would pay for it with either grants or the existing police budget,” said the news source.
Councilmember Katie Valenzuela requested the department “follow through on September and January asks to provide detailed demographic data on whom the department used military equipment against and restrict the usage of armored vehicles — such as the Rook – to defensive purposes,” said CapRadio.
The report for May 2022 through April 2023 includes a chart showing which military equipment the department used on 18 suspects. While it lists the suspects by gender and race and gives a general age range, the report does not summarize each incident, said Valenzuela.
“I’m concerned that some of the next steps we named in the last cycle are carrying over to this cycle,” Valenzuela said. “And I’d really like to see those get finished out before we start talking about considering moving this forward again.”
CapRadio reports “the council has approved a military equipment use policy twice before: in December 2021 and September 2022. Valenzuela and Council member Mai Vang voted against the policies both times.
“Like the September 2022 update, the proposed new policy includes equipment the department says it unintentionally left out in the previous version. Through its inventory audit process this year, the department found it underreported items including 200 rifles, 150 grenade canisters and more than 8,700 rounds.”
Military equipment is listed in the proposed new policy on the city website.
Your title and some of the content are incorrect. Please correct them for your readers. Although the Sacramento Police Department continues to repeat the statement about not being able to use their equipment, this is a lie or a misconception. The law, AB481, only required one year compliance and a possible loss of military equipment use during the very first year (2021-22). Subsequent years, the City Council only has to approve it “yearly”. There is no reason to pressure or bully City Council into accepting a substandard policy or report at the September 5th meeting. You can see this in this explanatory document https://tinyurl.com/ab481timeline