Local law enforcement owns millions of dollars in 'military equipment.' A new state bill seeks to regulate all of that.

Assembly Bill 481 requires law enforcement to disclose all of its military-grade equipment. Graphic by Douglas Young.

News

Local law enforcement owns millions of dollars in 'military equipment.' A new state bill seeks to regulate all of that.

Assembly Bill 481 requires law enforcement to disclose all of its military-grade equipment. Graphic by Douglas Young.

With the passage of a new state bill, California's police departments and sheriff's offices are facing unprecedented oversight of their so-called "military equipment" arsenals.

Assembly Bill 481, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in September 2021, gives governing bodies regulatory power over all such equipment owned by local law enforcement agencies.

Introduced in February 2021 by state Assembly member David Chiu, D-San Francisco, the bill seeks to increase transparency and control by requiring law enforcement to document the existence and use of all military equipment in their possession. In addition to submitting an annual report, agencies are required to get approval before acquiring any new equipment, including everything from armored vehicles and high-caliber firearms to chemical weapons and launchers.

"The public often have little to no information about such acquisitions, which can cost local governments tens of millions of dollars," Chiu wrote in an Assembly Floor analysis report. "This bill is about rebuilding community trust."

With the first annual reports due starting in May 2023, law enforcement agencies throughout the state, including in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, are tasked with inventorying their arsenals, which include hundreds of thousands of ammunition rounds and unmanned devices like drones and robots. So far Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City and Santa Clara and San Mateo counties have approved new policy ordinances.

Help sustain the local news you depend on.

Your contribution matters. Become a member today.

Join

Experts and policymakers alike hope that greater transparency and accountability will help repair fractured police-civilian relations.

"This bill is about rebuilding community trust. Our streets in California are not war zones, and our citizens are not enemy combatants," Chiu wrote. "Law enforcement in California are our partners in public safety."

State Assembly member David Chiu, D-San Francisco. Courtesy David Chiu.

Under AB 481, all law enforcement agencies in California seeking to continue to use military equipment acquired before Jan. 1 had to begin a multistep approval process with their local governing bodies.

Each department was required to draft and seek approval for a Military Equipment Use Policy describing each piece of equipment in its possession and the authorized uses. The deadline to begin the process was May 1; approval was required within 180 days of submitting the policy or use of the equipment would be suspended.

In the coming years, agencies are required to track the type and amount of all military-grade equipment in their possession on an ongoing basis. This information, as well as details about how the equipment has been used and any associated use of force reports, will be disclosed to the local governing bodies in an annual report.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox in our Express newsletter.

All reports are to be made publicly available online, and residents will be invited to attend an annual community engagement meeting to discuss the report's findings. Agencies are also required to seek legislative approval before acquiring any new military equipment or for using existing equipment in a way not previously approved.

Know your arsenal

Law enforcement agencies along the Peninsula currently have military equipment arsenals valued at thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

Both the San Mateo and Santa Clara county sheriff's offices have spent upwards of $2 million, not including annual maintenance and operations costs, on everything from semi-automatic rifles to tear gas to infrared drones. Palo Alto has spent the most among its surrounding cities, with equipment adding up to $418,820.

The Redwood City Police Department's equipment, which includes items from eight of the 15 categories named on the state's military equipment list, is valued at more than $258,755, not including annual costs. Among the city's items are "less-lethal" equipment, including launchers and shotguns for kinetic, foam and beanbag rounds; diversionary devices such as flashbangs, pepper balls and tear gas; drones and unmanned robots; a breaching shotgun; and a mobile command vehicle. Several other types of equipment — including a Lenco BearCat vehicle, an armored rescue vehicle and several drones — are owned and operated by other local emergency agencies within the city limits.

All Redwood City patrol officers are equipped with a semi-automatic patrol rifle and baton launcher, a device that looks like a rifle and shoots sponge, bean bag, wooden and plastic projectiles that are meant to impact the body rather than penetrate it.

Redwood City and Mountain View police departments have just over 100 semi-automatic rifles each, and Redwood City has more than two dozen sniper rifles and machine guns for use by SWAT officers only.

Menlo Park has a few sniper rifles and nonlethal flash-bang grenades, and it depends on the San Mateo County Sheriff's SWAT for militarized equipment such as surveillance and building-breaching equipment, according to its equipment-use policy. In crisis situations requiring the use of equipment such as bomb-disposal robots or advanced sniper weaponry, the county sheriff's department SWAT team can be asked to come out to assist the city police department through "interoperability" agreements between the departments.

Palo Alto's arsenal includes more than 100 flash-bang launchers, a SWAT rifle and nonlethal projectile launchers. The city has invested heavily in an advanced mobile-command-unit program and long-range acoustic device equipment, which delivers extremely high decibel levels for crowd control or to deliver instructions during natural disasters or other emergencies. It relies on Mountain View and the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office for more advanced military equipment through joint interoperability programs.

Mountain View is the most heavily invested of the northern Santa Clara County city departments in terms of the amount of equipment, with a large quantity of flash-bang launchers, chemical munitions, less-lethal projectiles, an aerial surveillance system (drone), robot and mobile-command center. The department is evaluating a large caliber sniper program.

East Palo Alto interim police Chief Jeff Liu said the only piece of military equipment his department possesses and deploys is a less lethal 40mm launcher, which is used as an alternative to deadly force.

"My officers handle mental health crisis calls with empathy and compassion. Our officers already have the adequate equipment available to them to perform their duties, and I do not feel we need any additional 'military equipment,'" he said.

Liu also noted that East Palo Alto is a small community with a relatively small police department.

"We do not have the same specialized teams that larger departments have, and thus do not need to procure any of the associated equipment that fit this definition," he said.

What is military equipment anyway?

Palo Alto's Mobile Emergency Operations Center, which falls under the state's military equipment "command and control vehicle" category, is parked outside of the Police Department's headquarters on Forest Avenue. Courtesy Palo Alto Police Department.

There is no standard definition of the term "military equipment," a fact that, even as law enforcement agencies seek to implement AB 481, has caused confusion and some consternation.

The United States Department of Defense's Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight defines military equipment as "all weapon systems, weapon platforms, vehicles, and munitions of the Department of Defense, and the components of such items." However, this definition is not referenced directly in the state bill, which appears to sidestep a definition in favor of listing items that the bill's collaborators — California legislators as well as bill sponsors and statewide law enforcement groups — deem to be 'military equipment.

An initial version of the bill described military equipment as "equipment that is militaristic in nature," but the line was subsequently removed from the text. The final version of the law does not define military equipment but instead lists items in 15 categories.

Military equipment, as outlined in the state law, includes all chemical agents, specialized firearms and munitions, projectile launchers, flashbang devices, auxiliary vehicles and remotely operated devices.

Jen Kwart, communications director for Chiu, said that the state bill should not be seen as the "end-all be-all definition of military equipment across all of California."

"These laws are very specific as to what the definitions mean and apply to. This law didn't say this is what the state of California believes is military equipment across the board," she said. "This is the definition for the purposes of complying with this specific code section."

But some law enforcement personnel take issue with the term "military equipment" — and the implied dangers the weapons and other supplies pose to the general public.

"We haven't purchased any from the military or received any through military programs," Lt. Eamonn Allen of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office said. "These are all civilian types of equipment."

The county's Bearcat, for example, is a significantly less "heavy-duty" armored personnel carrier than the type used by the military, he said, calling it the "civilian version of these vehicles." And yet, the Bearcat qualifies under the state bill to be categorized as military equipment.

Palo Alto police acting Capt. James Reifschneider. Courtesy James Reifschneider.

Palo Alto Police acting Capt. James Reifschneider agreed "military equipment" may not accurately describe what a law enforcement agency has in its arsenal.

"The phrase 'military-grade equipment' may be unintentionally misleading to readers — at least as applied to PAPD," he said in an email. "While we possess certain pieces of equipment that are now statutorily-defined as 'military equipment,' these items are all designed specifically for a law enforcement (not military) application.

"While AB 481 does also cover true military-grade equipment (e.g. 'surplus' equipment originally supplied to the U.S. Armed Forces but then given to a police agency), PAPD does not use this type of equipment and is not in possession of any of it like some other agencies in the Bay Area," Reifschneider said.

However, Kwart pushed back on terminology and characterizations not included in the official state text.

"'Military-grade equipment' is not a term that is used in the bill," she said. "So for purposes of analyzing local jurisdictions' obligations under the law, they should use the definition of 'military equipment' that is spelled out in the law."

Stanford Law Professor David Sklansky concurred that the military equipment category "can be hard to define."

He said that equipment that "seems inarguably military," like certain kinds of arms, can still be appropriate for police department use. On the other hand, he argued that some less obviously "military" equipment may also be in the hands of public safety officers. And that could be a cause for concern.

"Drones are a perfect example of this," Sklansky said. "Even drones that don't seem military raise concerns about privacy. And communities may have concerns about the police using them."

Free surplus from the U.S. military

So what are the roots of the phrase "military equipment"? While not the complete source of local law enforcement's military arsenals, local agencies have, for years, been the recipients of free, surplus military equipment from the Department of Defense (DOD). Under the federal 1033 Program, which came about under then-President George H. W. Bush in the early 1990s, the DOD is legally required to make excess equipment available to local police forces. Since then, some 8,200 law enforcement agencies have participated in the program which, as of 2020, has facilitated the transfer of over $7.5 billion in equipment, according to the administering Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).

Stanford Law Professor David Sklansky. Courtesy David Sklansky.

"Weapons, military-grade vehicles, devices that can be used for a forced entry into residences, military-style clothing, bayonets," said Sklansky, naming a few examples. "Police departments get all kinds of equipment that the military winds up not needing and that's provided to departments free or at reduced rates."

Some of this equipment has made its way into the hands of law enforcement throughout the Peninsula.

In 2015, Mountain View acquired 20 M-16 rifles worth nearly $15,000 for free from the military under its 1033 surplus equipment program, while San Jose has several dozen items, including cameras, armored vehicles and night vision goggles, valued at more than $900,000.

The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office was the recipient of a single camouflage set in 2014.

In San Mateo County, Defense Logistics Agency records show that the cities of Belmont, San Mateo and East Palo Alto have received nearly $215,000 worth of surplus equipment from the DOD, including rifles, thermal imaging cameras and — in Belmont and San Mateo — military robots.

Robots have generated controversy recently, with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voting on Tuesday to ban using the robots in its arsenal to deliver and detonate explosives against a suspect. Not all robots have this capacity; many are used instead to surveil, deliver messages or to sense and manipulate objects.

The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office has robots identical to what San Francisco Police Department has — ones that can be "armed with small explosive charges or shotgun shells." But Allen said it would be a "huge violation" of the county's policy for the robots to be used against a civilian, suspect or even animal. The sheriff's robots are used "specifically for explosive ordnance disposal," he said.

The Redwood City Police Department sparked some outrage among community members in 2014 after acquiring a mine-resistant vehicle worth roughly $750,000 from the U.S. government. The vehicle ultimately was returned to the federal government in 2020, and the department has currently no other equipment through the 1033 program.

"Having that particular vehicle was always somewhat controversial," said Capt. Ashley Osborne. "It was too large and heavy to be practical and it presented an image inconsistent with our desire to be a community oriented police department."

Not all equipment comes from federal surplus, however. The Mountain View Police Department acquired its Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle during a 2006 criminal investigation during which officers confiscated the weapon. The department now owns it.

Law enforcement agencies have also historically used grants and general funds to finance the purchase of various types of equipment. The Palo Alto Police Department purchased its Mobile Emergency Command Center in 2010 with $300,000 in grant funding — $150,000 from the Homeland Security Grant Program and $150,000 from Homeland Security's Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative plus $375,000 in city funding. The MEOC is not a "military vehicle," the department said, but it could support coordination with the National Guard, FEMA and other cooperating agencies after major disasters.

'This bill is about rebuilding community trust. Our streets in California are not war zones, and our citizens are not enemy combatants.'

-David Chiu, state Assembly member, D-San Francisco

This distinction between military- and civilian-grade equipment has caused some confusion among the communities that law enforcement agencies serve. During the April 19 meeting of the San Mateo County Board, Supervisor Warren Slocum asked the sheriff for clarification.

"This item is listed under the topic of 'military equipment,' but I thought I heard the sheriff say that the sheriff's office doesn't currently have any military equipment and doesn't have any plans to purchase military equipment," he said. "So, why is this matter referred to as 'military equipment?'"

"In our interpretation, military equipment or military grade equipment would be ... what is used by the military as well or from military contracts," Allen said. "We don't have any equipment like that."

Nicholas Perna, a Redwood City police sergeant, said that using the term "military equipment" was "painting it with a very broad brush."

"I was in the army for 13 years," he said. "Military-style helmets and vests worn by military and law enforcement — they're just there for protection, to stop rounds. It's protective gear, no different than wearing goggles or protective glasses."

Resident Elsa Shafer also voiced her concerns during public comment.

"I think there is an unnecessary delineation between whether it's being bought from the military or whether it's military-grade," she said. "I don't understand what the reason is to need it in our county ... I personally would like to know in what situations it would have improved an interaction."

A move toward transparency

Palo Alto Police Department's Mobile Emergency Operations Center falls under the state's military equipment "command and control vehicle" category, but it has many non-military uses, including as a command communications center during high-traffic football games and if the police command center is inoperable due to an emergency. Courtesy Palo Alto Police Department.

Allen of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office said that his agency is generally supportive of the new legislation as a means of increasing transparency.

"We're responsible to the community, and the taxes that they pay fund our salaries; they fund the equipment we have," he said. "So adding an extra layer of transparency and visibility, and accountability, we're happy to comply with."

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian said that as far back as 2020 the supervisors, and he in particular, wanted to know what military equipment the sheriff's office possesses, what policies are in place for its use, and under what circumstances the equipment could be used. In 2021, after learning the legislature had a good chance of passing AB 481, he waited to further pursue the issue because the law would give the board real statutory authority.

He's pleased with the scope of the new state law. If an agency doesn't comply, the county or a local governmental body could decide not to fund the military weapons. Plus, AB 481 has a provision requiring that a law enforcement agency must stop using its military equipment if the local governmental body hasn't approved the policy, list and annual report in subsequent years.

Osborne, of the Redwood City Police Department, doubted that the new ordinance would change how law enforcement trains with or uses its military-grade equipment. He said one of the biggest changes would be the additional burden of reporting.

"We have to produce a report that's pretty comprehensive — money spent, how equipment is used, any feedback we get," he said. "Certainly it's going to take up a good bit of administrative time, probably more this first year as we figure it out."

Still, he agreed with Allen about the added public benefit.

"The reporting requirements will probably require us to take a better look at the overall cost of things," he said. "It will be public information, so that increases transparency with feedback from city council and community."

He also hoped that the annual report and public meetings would help educate the community and dispel some "misconceptions about what (equipment) we have and how we use it."

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

This article is the first in a two-part series about AB 481 and local law enforcement agencies' military arsenals. Part 2, detailing the surrounding controversy and how departments are using the equipment, will be published in January.

Follow Palo Alto Online and the Palo Alto Weekly on Twitter @paloaltoweekly, Facebook and on Instagram @paloaltoonline for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

Get uninterrupted access to important local law enforcement news. Become a member today.

Local law enforcement owns millions of dollars in 'military equipment.' A new state bill seeks to regulate all of that.

by Leah Worthington and Sue Dremann / Embarcadero Media

Uploaded: Fri, Dec 9, 2022, 6:59 am

With the passage of a new state bill, California's police departments and sheriff's offices are facing unprecedented oversight of their so-called "military equipment" arsenals.

Assembly Bill 481, which Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law in September 2021, gives governing bodies regulatory power over all such equipment owned by local law enforcement agencies.

Introduced in February 2021 by state Assembly member David Chiu, D-San Francisco, the bill seeks to increase transparency and control by requiring law enforcement to document the existence and use of all military equipment in their possession. In addition to submitting an annual report, agencies are required to get approval before acquiring any new equipment, including everything from armored vehicles and high-caliber firearms to chemical weapons and launchers.

"The public often have little to no information about such acquisitions, which can cost local governments tens of millions of dollars," Chiu wrote in an Assembly Floor analysis report. "This bill is about rebuilding community trust."

With the first annual reports due starting in May 2023, law enforcement agencies throughout the state, including in San Mateo and Santa Clara counties, are tasked with inventorying their arsenals, which include hundreds of thousands of ammunition rounds and unmanned devices like drones and robots. So far Atherton, East Palo Alto, Menlo Park, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Redwood City and Santa Clara and San Mateo counties have approved new policy ordinances.

Experts and policymakers alike hope that greater transparency and accountability will help repair fractured police-civilian relations.

"This bill is about rebuilding community trust. Our streets in California are not war zones, and our citizens are not enemy combatants," Chiu wrote. "Law enforcement in California are our partners in public safety."

Under AB 481, all law enforcement agencies in California seeking to continue to use military equipment acquired before Jan. 1 had to begin a multistep approval process with their local governing bodies.

Each department was required to draft and seek approval for a Military Equipment Use Policy describing each piece of equipment in its possession and the authorized uses. The deadline to begin the process was May 1; approval was required within 180 days of submitting the policy or use of the equipment would be suspended.

In the coming years, agencies are required to track the type and amount of all military-grade equipment in their possession on an ongoing basis. This information, as well as details about how the equipment has been used and any associated use of force reports, will be disclosed to the local governing bodies in an annual report.

All reports are to be made publicly available online, and residents will be invited to attend an annual community engagement meeting to discuss the report's findings. Agencies are also required to seek legislative approval before acquiring any new military equipment or for using existing equipment in a way not previously approved.

Know your arsenal

Law enforcement agencies along the Peninsula currently have military equipment arsenals valued at thousands, if not millions, of dollars.

Both the San Mateo and Santa Clara county sheriff's offices have spent upwards of $2 million, not including annual maintenance and operations costs, on everything from semi-automatic rifles to tear gas to infrared drones. Palo Alto has spent the most among its surrounding cities, with equipment adding up to $418,820.

The Redwood City Police Department's equipment, which includes items from eight of the 15 categories named on the state's military equipment list, is valued at more than $258,755, not including annual costs. Among the city's items are "less-lethal" equipment, including launchers and shotguns for kinetic, foam and beanbag rounds; diversionary devices such as flashbangs, pepper balls and tear gas; drones and unmanned robots; a breaching shotgun; and a mobile command vehicle. Several other types of equipment — including a Lenco BearCat vehicle, an armored rescue vehicle and several drones — are owned and operated by other local emergency agencies within the city limits.

All Redwood City patrol officers are equipped with a semi-automatic patrol rifle and baton launcher, a device that looks like a rifle and shoots sponge, bean bag, wooden and plastic projectiles that are meant to impact the body rather than penetrate it.

Redwood City and Mountain View police departments have just over 100 semi-automatic rifles each, and Redwood City has more than two dozen sniper rifles and machine guns for use by SWAT officers only.

Menlo Park has a few sniper rifles and nonlethal flash-bang grenades, and it depends on the San Mateo County Sheriff's SWAT for militarized equipment such as surveillance and building-breaching equipment, according to its equipment-use policy. In crisis situations requiring the use of equipment such as bomb-disposal robots or advanced sniper weaponry, the county sheriff's department SWAT team can be asked to come out to assist the city police department through "interoperability" agreements between the departments.

Palo Alto's arsenal includes more than 100 flash-bang launchers, a SWAT rifle and nonlethal projectile launchers. The city has invested heavily in an advanced mobile-command-unit program and long-range acoustic device equipment, which delivers extremely high decibel levels for crowd control or to deliver instructions during natural disasters or other emergencies. It relies on Mountain View and the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office for more advanced military equipment through joint interoperability programs.

Mountain View is the most heavily invested of the northern Santa Clara County city departments in terms of the amount of equipment, with a large quantity of flash-bang launchers, chemical munitions, less-lethal projectiles, an aerial surveillance system (drone), robot and mobile-command center. The department is evaluating a large caliber sniper program.

East Palo Alto interim police Chief Jeff Liu said the only piece of military equipment his department possesses and deploys is a less lethal 40mm launcher, which is used as an alternative to deadly force.

"My officers handle mental health crisis calls with empathy and compassion. Our officers already have the adequate equipment available to them to perform their duties, and I do not feel we need any additional 'military equipment,'" he said.

Liu also noted that East Palo Alto is a small community with a relatively small police department.

"We do not have the same specialized teams that larger departments have, and thus do not need to procure any of the associated equipment that fit this definition," he said.

What is military equipment anyway?

There is no standard definition of the term "military equipment," a fact that, even as law enforcement agencies seek to implement AB 481, has caused confusion and some consternation.

The United States Department of Defense's Office of Corrosion Policy and Oversight defines military equipment as "all weapon systems, weapon platforms, vehicles, and munitions of the Department of Defense, and the components of such items." However, this definition is not referenced directly in the state bill, which appears to sidestep a definition in favor of listing items that the bill's collaborators — California legislators as well as bill sponsors and statewide law enforcement groups — deem to be 'military equipment.

An initial version of the bill described military equipment as "equipment that is militaristic in nature," but the line was subsequently removed from the text. The final version of the law does not define military equipment but instead lists items in 15 categories.

Military equipment, as outlined in the state law, includes all chemical agents, specialized firearms and munitions, projectile launchers, flashbang devices, auxiliary vehicles and remotely operated devices.

Jen Kwart, communications director for Chiu, said that the state bill should not be seen as the "end-all be-all definition of military equipment across all of California."

"These laws are very specific as to what the definitions mean and apply to. This law didn't say this is what the state of California believes is military equipment across the board," she said. "This is the definition for the purposes of complying with this specific code section."

But some law enforcement personnel take issue with the term "military equipment" — and the implied dangers the weapons and other supplies pose to the general public.

"We haven't purchased any from the military or received any through military programs," Lt. Eamonn Allen of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office said. "These are all civilian types of equipment."

The county's Bearcat, for example, is a significantly less "heavy-duty" armored personnel carrier than the type used by the military, he said, calling it the "civilian version of these vehicles." And yet, the Bearcat qualifies under the state bill to be categorized as military equipment.

Palo Alto Police acting Capt. James Reifschneider agreed "military equipment" may not accurately describe what a law enforcement agency has in its arsenal.

"The phrase 'military-grade equipment' may be unintentionally misleading to readers — at least as applied to PAPD," he said in an email. "While we possess certain pieces of equipment that are now statutorily-defined as 'military equipment,' these items are all designed specifically for a law enforcement (not military) application.

"While AB 481 does also cover true military-grade equipment (e.g. 'surplus' equipment originally supplied to the U.S. Armed Forces but then given to a police agency), PAPD does not use this type of equipment and is not in possession of any of it like some other agencies in the Bay Area," Reifschneider said.

However, Kwart pushed back on terminology and characterizations not included in the official state text.

"'Military-grade equipment' is not a term that is used in the bill," she said. "So for purposes of analyzing local jurisdictions' obligations under the law, they should use the definition of 'military equipment' that is spelled out in the law."

Stanford Law Professor David Sklansky concurred that the military equipment category "can be hard to define."

He said that equipment that "seems inarguably military," like certain kinds of arms, can still be appropriate for police department use. On the other hand, he argued that some less obviously "military" equipment may also be in the hands of public safety officers. And that could be a cause for concern.

"Drones are a perfect example of this," Sklansky said. "Even drones that don't seem military raise concerns about privacy. And communities may have concerns about the police using them."

Free surplus from the U.S. military

So what are the roots of the phrase "military equipment"? While not the complete source of local law enforcement's military arsenals, local agencies have, for years, been the recipients of free, surplus military equipment from the Department of Defense (DOD). Under the federal 1033 Program, which came about under then-President George H. W. Bush in the early 1990s, the DOD is legally required to make excess equipment available to local police forces. Since then, some 8,200 law enforcement agencies have participated in the program which, as of 2020, has facilitated the transfer of over $7.5 billion in equipment, according to the administering Defense Logistics Agency (DLA).

"Weapons, military-grade vehicles, devices that can be used for a forced entry into residences, military-style clothing, bayonets," said Sklansky, naming a few examples. "Police departments get all kinds of equipment that the military winds up not needing and that's provided to departments free or at reduced rates."

Some of this equipment has made its way into the hands of law enforcement throughout the Peninsula.

In 2015, Mountain View acquired 20 M-16 rifles worth nearly $15,000 for free from the military under its 1033 surplus equipment program, while San Jose has several dozen items, including cameras, armored vehicles and night vision goggles, valued at more than $900,000.

The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office was the recipient of a single camouflage set in 2014.

In San Mateo County, Defense Logistics Agency records show that the cities of Belmont, San Mateo and East Palo Alto have received nearly $215,000 worth of surplus equipment from the DOD, including rifles, thermal imaging cameras and — in Belmont and San Mateo — military robots.

Robots have generated controversy recently, with the San Francisco Board of Supervisors voting on Tuesday to ban using the robots in its arsenal to deliver and detonate explosives against a suspect. Not all robots have this capacity; many are used instead to surveil, deliver messages or to sense and manipulate objects.

The San Mateo County Sheriff's Office has robots identical to what San Francisco Police Department has — ones that can be "armed with small explosive charges or shotgun shells." But Allen said it would be a "huge violation" of the county's policy for the robots to be used against a civilian, suspect or even animal. The sheriff's robots are used "specifically for explosive ordnance disposal," he said.

The Redwood City Police Department sparked some outrage among community members in 2014 after acquiring a mine-resistant vehicle worth roughly $750,000 from the U.S. government. The vehicle ultimately was returned to the federal government in 2020, and the department has currently no other equipment through the 1033 program.

"Having that particular vehicle was always somewhat controversial," said Capt. Ashley Osborne. "It was too large and heavy to be practical and it presented an image inconsistent with our desire to be a community oriented police department."

Not all equipment comes from federal surplus, however. The Mountain View Police Department acquired its Barrett .50-caliber sniper rifle during a 2006 criminal investigation during which officers confiscated the weapon. The department now owns it.

Law enforcement agencies have also historically used grants and general funds to finance the purchase of various types of equipment. The Palo Alto Police Department purchased its Mobile Emergency Command Center in 2010 with $300,000 in grant funding — $150,000 from the Homeland Security Grant Program and $150,000 from Homeland Security's Bay Area Urban Areas Security Initiative plus $375,000 in city funding. The MEOC is not a "military vehicle," the department said, but it could support coordination with the National Guard, FEMA and other cooperating agencies after major disasters.

This distinction between military- and civilian-grade equipment has caused some confusion among the communities that law enforcement agencies serve. During the April 19 meeting of the San Mateo County Board, Supervisor Warren Slocum asked the sheriff for clarification.

"This item is listed under the topic of 'military equipment,' but I thought I heard the sheriff say that the sheriff's office doesn't currently have any military equipment and doesn't have any plans to purchase military equipment," he said. "So, why is this matter referred to as 'military equipment?'"

"In our interpretation, military equipment or military grade equipment would be ... what is used by the military as well or from military contracts," Allen said. "We don't have any equipment like that."

Nicholas Perna, a Redwood City police sergeant, said that using the term "military equipment" was "painting it with a very broad brush."

"I was in the army for 13 years," he said. "Military-style helmets and vests worn by military and law enforcement — they're just there for protection, to stop rounds. It's protective gear, no different than wearing goggles or protective glasses."

Resident Elsa Shafer also voiced her concerns during public comment.

"I think there is an unnecessary delineation between whether it's being bought from the military or whether it's military-grade," she said. "I don't understand what the reason is to need it in our county ... I personally would like to know in what situations it would have improved an interaction."

A move toward transparency

Allen of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Office said that his agency is generally supportive of the new legislation as a means of increasing transparency.

"We're responsible to the community, and the taxes that they pay fund our salaries; they fund the equipment we have," he said. "So adding an extra layer of transparency and visibility, and accountability, we're happy to comply with."

Santa Clara County Supervisor Joe Simitian said that as far back as 2020 the supervisors, and he in particular, wanted to know what military equipment the sheriff's office possesses, what policies are in place for its use, and under what circumstances the equipment could be used. In 2021, after learning the legislature had a good chance of passing AB 481, he waited to further pursue the issue because the law would give the board real statutory authority.

He's pleased with the scope of the new state law. If an agency doesn't comply, the county or a local governmental body could decide not to fund the military weapons. Plus, AB 481 has a provision requiring that a law enforcement agency must stop using its military equipment if the local governmental body hasn't approved the policy, list and annual report in subsequent years.

Osborne, of the Redwood City Police Department, doubted that the new ordinance would change how law enforcement trains with or uses its military-grade equipment. He said one of the biggest changes would be the additional burden of reporting.

"We have to produce a report that's pretty comprehensive — money spent, how equipment is used, any feedback we get," he said. "Certainly it's going to take up a good bit of administrative time, probably more this first year as we figure it out."

Still, he agreed with Allen about the added public benefit.

"The reporting requirements will probably require us to take a better look at the overall cost of things," he said. "It will be public information, so that increases transparency with feedback from city council and community."

He also hoped that the annual report and public meetings would help educate the community and dispel some "misconceptions about what (equipment) we have and how we use it."

This article is the first in a two-part series about AB 481 and local law enforcement agencies' military arsenals. Part 2, detailing the surrounding controversy and how departments are using the equipment, will be published in January.

Comments

Justin Geherty
Registered user
Stanford
on Dec 9, 2022 at 8:06 am
Justin Geherty, Stanford
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2022 at 8:06 am

Stocking a paramilitary arsenal comes as no surprise because most police departments are quasi-military organizations to begin with.

The question is how much military-grade equipment and firepower is actually needed to ensure law and order in a suburban community such as Palo Alto.

Are armored troop carriers, mobile command centers, semi-automatic assault rifles, and robots with mounted machines guns (as in SF) prerequisites for maintaining public safety or merely an unsubstantiated show of force?

Would such amenities prevent Stanford Shopping Center robberies, public disturbances, domestic violence, and traffic violations?

Most likely not. Besides, it is the duty of the National Guard and military to enforce martial law and combat domestic terrorism if needed, not the local police.


Barron Park Denizen
Registered user
Barron Park
on Dec 9, 2022 at 4:34 pm
Barron Park Denizen, Barron Park
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2022 at 4:34 pm

Are you in favor of, or against, these components of local "military arsenals":

1. A mobile command center that can save lives after an earthquake.
2. Truck- and drone-mounted infrared cameras that can find children and elders lost in the hills.
3. Beanbag guns that give officers a non-lethal option, including when a person is threatening harm to themselves.
4. Rifles that could be needed to respond to attacks on local houses of worship.


Consider Your Options.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2022 at 5:29 pm
Consider Your Options. , Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2022 at 5:29 pm

I'm surprised that they hadn't previously been required to track this.


Consider Your Options.
Registered user
Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Dec 9, 2022 at 5:30 pm
Consider Your Options. , Another Palo Alto neighborhood
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2022 at 5:30 pm

I don't have a problem with PAPD having the items in the above comment.


Palo Alto Citizen
Registered user
JLS Middle School
on Dec 9, 2022 at 8:50 pm
Palo Alto Citizen, JLS Middle School
Registered user
on Dec 9, 2022 at 8:50 pm

There is a difference between what Barron Park Denizen said and what the police have. They have things like that, but they also use many other things. There is a whole Wikipedia article on the militarization of police. They are just required to track it now.

Web Link


John
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 10, 2022 at 5:08 am
John, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Dec 10, 2022 at 5:08 am

As an Iraq vet I can tell you that less lethal anything, along with teargas, robots, beanbag shotguns are only military in the confused minds of politicians. “High-caliber rifle” is another misnomer and makes ppl like me laugh out loud. Deer hunters use larger rounds than our PD.

As far as the armored vehicles, they’ve also got ballistic plating in the squad cars you see everyday. I like our cops having cover if they’re shot at, don’t you? Does armor actually worry anyone or are we still being silly?


Neal
Registered user
Community Center
on Dec 10, 2022 at 8:52 am
Neal, Community Center
Registered user
on Dec 10, 2022 at 8:52 am

It's better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it. You don't want to be out gunned by the bad guys. You don't bring a knife to a gun fight.


John Donegan
Registered user
another community
on Dec 10, 2022 at 9:32 am
John Donegan, another community
Registered user
on Dec 10, 2022 at 9:32 am

is there really a problem that needs addressing? The police are as well-trained, supervised and disciplined a group you're likely to find in any armed service. I haven't heard of any incidents of the cops carpet bombing crack houses or shelling jay walkers. This is just a silly reaction to the scary look of people with guns.


SteveDabrowski
Registered user
Duveneck/St. Francis
on Dec 10, 2022 at 1:06 pm
SteveDabrowski, Duveneck/St. Francis
Registered user
on Dec 10, 2022 at 1:06 pm

I'd like to have one of those Lenco BearCat G3's. Great SUV for getting through traffic on Embarcadero when going to Trader Joe's.


GTSpencer
Registered user
Midtown
on Dec 10, 2022 at 3:45 pm
GTSpencer, Midtown
Registered user
on Dec 10, 2022 at 3:45 pm

If only the state and our politicians would put this much effort into lock up criminals....Another woke article..


Ryan
Registered user
Barron Park
on Dec 11, 2022 at 10:33 pm
Ryan, Barron Park
Registered user
on Dec 11, 2022 at 10:33 pm

Please give Police anything they need to wipe out crime


John
Registered user
Adobe-Meadow
on Dec 12, 2022 at 10:06 am
John, Adobe-Meadow
Registered user
on Dec 12, 2022 at 10:06 am

@Ryan- they’ll be glad to put crooks in jail… but then DA Rosen will let them right out. That’s what the voters have (repeatedly) voted in to law.


Bob Prescott
Registered user
Menlo Park
on Dec 12, 2022 at 3:03 pm
Bob Prescott, Menlo Park
Registered user
on Dec 12, 2022 at 3:03 pm

Interesting to note that Menlo Park does not get carried away with this paramilitary kind of stuff...probably explains why west MP is a nicer place to live than the aforementioned cities gearing-up for their war on crime.


Nancy the real Nancy
Registered user
Downtown North
on Dec 17, 2022 at 8:13 am
Nancy the real Nancy, Downtown North
Registered user
on Dec 17, 2022 at 8:13 am

What Neal said above.

Better to have it then not.

Ask LAPD if they wanted military supplies during the Bank of America heist in North Hollywood.

More is better.

I want to win...errr... live...


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

In order to encourage respectful and thoughtful discussion, commenting on stories is available to those who are registered users. If you are already a registered user and the commenting form is not below, you need to log in. If you are not registered, you can do so here.

Please make sure your comments are truthful, on-topic and do not disrespect another poster. Don't be snarky or belittling. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

See our announcement about requiring registration for commenting.