|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton Police Department’s biannual update to the City Council last week included a brief reference to AB 481: Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use.
AB 481 opens with the statement, “The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs.”
The legislation requires that an approval process by a governing body like the City Council for the use of military equipment acquired before January 1, 2022, by municipal agencies like the PPD must begin by May 1, 2022.
Since AB 481 states that military equipment does not keep us safe, but does the opposite, and since the commencement of the approval process is almost here, it got me to thinking about the question: What military equipment does the PPD currently possess?
I know about the department’s armored rescue vehicle, but that’s all, so I submitted this question to the council ahead of their meeting and copied PPD Chief David Swing.
During the Q&A following the department’s update presentation, Chief Swing responded that the PPD has a number of items that qualify under the state’s “expansive list” of military equipment.
I appreciate Chief Swing’s candor in his response, although the fact that our police department possesses that much military equipment that under current legislation “adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare” also causes me concern.
The provisions of AB 481 do set a high bar if the PPD, and the City Council, want to retain the current inventory of military equipment or add to it. Specifically, any military equipment use policy submitted by the PPD must demonstrate that:
* The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
* The proposed military equipment will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties.
* 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.
My expectation as a citizen of Pleasanton is that the City Council will ensure that the PPD provides a comprehensive policy to meet the requirements of AB 481 so that, as the bill further states, “safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures (are) in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.”
I urge other citizens to also follow up on this subject. You can email the members of the City Council at citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov.
Editor’s note: Ward Kanowsky is a 28-year Pleasanton resident, and he and his wife, LeAnn, have raised three children locally. He is a longtime, active volunteer in the community.
