LOS ANGELES, CA – Los Angeles City Controller Kenneth Mejia released a statement earlier this month charging the Los Angeles Police Dept. is not following state law regarding filing requirements of the use of military equipment.
“Because the LAPD’s latest annual AB 481 report again fails to fully comply with AB 481’s specific requirements,” Mejia said, “we continue to urge the LA City Council to reject the next LAPD Military Equipment Policy until the LAPD fully complies.”
LAPD’s annual AB 481 report and its audit by the Audit Services Division of the Controller’s Office urged LAPD to make changes to uphold transparency and accountability under AB 481, a California military equipment law for law enforcement agencies and outlines legal minimums that agencies must meet, said Mejia
The controller said the audit findings noted the LAPD’s previous annual AB 481 report failed to comply with the AB 481 requirements.
“The Controller’s Office originally audited the LAPD’s compliance with AB 481 in order to
empower members of the public and policymakers to demand the public oversight and
transparency required by law and by our City’s values,” said Mejia in the statement.
Mejia outlined recommendations for the LAPD to comply with AB 481 and requested that the LA City Council prohibit the LAPD from using military equipment under the LAPD Military Equipment Policy until it fully complies with the AB 481 standards.
“Of our audit’s 13 recommendations, four were not met, three were met, two were partially met, and the status of four are unknown,” Mejia said.
The recommendations for the LAPD to implement but were unmet, according to the controller, included creating a webpage that includes the military equipment policy, military equipment reports, and other information relevant to AB 481.
Other recommendations included the establishing a formal AB 481 communication line, including product descriptions from manufacturers in the annual reports and developing additional guidance for LAPD entities to clarify standards for reporting military equipment quantities to maximize transparency.
“Ultimately,” Mejia said, “Our audit’s previous chief concerns remain noteworthy: the AB 481 report is still difficult for the general public to locate, and the LAPD’s outreach and education efforts around it are still limited.”
One recommendation partially met was an itemized way to record the acquisition and maintenance cost of military equipment which the LAPD is updating its procedure in collecting inventory information, according to the press release.
Another partially met recommendation, as reported in the press release, was the recording of the number of use instances for each type of military equipment.
“While the LAPD has made some progress implementing the recommendations in our audit report,” Mejia said, “the department still does not fully comply with AB481, and still needs to take steps to improve both transparency and the quality of the military equipment information it reports.”
The recommendations, Mejia said, that are unmet, or whose status is still unknown, include implementing verifications of inventory and cost information reported by LAPD, requiring the maintenance of inventory records for any equipment that is reportable under AB 481, developing a formal definition for military equipment for complaint and reporting process, and developing guidance for responding to the public’s questions regarding AB 481.
