Community members who attended a meeting Monday night on the Sacramento Police Department’s use of military equipment discussed their prevailing concerns: Do the police really need military equipment to do their jobs? And what qualifies the civilian commission to provide recommendations to the department?
The Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s three-hour meeting at the Oak Park Community Center focused on a discussion of the department’s 2023-24 annual military equipment usage report , which was released this month. The commission is tasked with making recommendations to the City Council based on the community concerns expressed at the meeting.
In the report, the Police Department shared that the equipment they planned to acquire in the next year — including nine additional unmanned aircraft, armor-piercing rounds and chemical agents — would cost $95,330 if approved by the City Council. The request has yet to be added to the council’s agenda.
Terri King, a Sacramento resident and school counselor who spoke at the meeting, referenced a peer-reviewed study showing that military gear does not protect officers or reduce crime.
“Case studies have proven that military equipment does not increase officer safety and it doesn’t increase benefits for civilians,” King said. “If it doesn’t increase our safety why are we spending money on something with zero benefit?”
Representatives from the Police Department included Lt. Jeff Shiraishi and Capt. Clay Buchanan responded to King’s and other speakers’ concerns about the benefit of this equipment.
Buchanan said there were instances of officers being shielded by their armored vehicles. The Police Department has two armored vehicles and a tracked armored vehicle called the Rook, which caused controversy when it was approved for purchase by the City Council last year.
“We have had our armored vehicles with our officers in them shot at, if we did not have that either our officers would be dead or we’d have to shoot someone to protect ourselves,” Buchanan said. “To say ‘it is not proven to have officer safety or public safety implications,’ we could disagree on that.”
The two armored vehicles’ procurement cost $720,039, while annual maintenance costs are $23,804, according to police.
The Rook’s procurement cost $400,000, and while the cost of maintenance was not shown in the military equipment usage report, the personnel and training cost is $16,231.
Which officials attended?
Unlike last year, several city leaders attended the meeting , including Vice Mayor Caity Maple, Fiscal Policy Analyst Ricardo Sanchez, interim City Auditor Farishta Ahrary and Deputy City Attorney Jordan Lowery. While the officials did not participate in public comments, they took notes during the meeting, and the auditors disclosed they were conducting an audit of the military equipment and inventory.
The review commission members who attended were Keyan Bliss, Ramona Landeros, John Johnson, and Xochimilco Salazar. Bliss began the meeting by clarifying the term “military equipment” would mean “any piece of equipment that was designed of, by and for the military,” and correspond to the definitions of military equipment in accordance with Government Code section 7070(c).
Voices in support of military equipment use
John Morales, a resident of East Sacramento, shared an image of 211 guns seized by the police in 2017 after a drive-by shooting in Meadowview launched a multi-agency operation targeting gang violence in the city and surrounding incorporated areas. Morales used the incident as justification for the police using military-grade equipment.
“The police, in order for them to do their job and go home safely every night to their families and to their homes, they need the equipment. So they can confront the fentanyl dealers and the meth dealers who have these types of guns,” said Morales. “So I support the police. They do need this equipment for these types of situations. The gangs are heavily armed.”
Another speaker, who identified herself as Karen and declined to provide a last name, thanked the commission members for volunteering their time and pointed out their lack of experience in law enforcement.
“You’re (the Police Review Commission) providing recommendations to the police department, but yet you’ve never stepped in their shoes. You’ve never had to go into situations like they have, you’ve never had to respond to calls where they feel that their lives are being threatened,” she said.
“I do worry about about a fully civilian commission making recommendations to a police department that trains their officers and does the best that they can do and most of the time, they are successful in their in their way that they are policing.”
In response, commissioner Landeros explained she has been active in her community for 40 years and has “done enough work around law enforcement” to understand what is necessary for police.
“The concern feeds into a troubling narrative that community members don’t have the ability to discuss community and public safety,” said Bliss after the meeting. “It discounts our own shared ability to ensure we are keeping our community safe within our shared interests and values.”
Bliss explained that membership requires commission members not be active members in law enforcement, but he was unsure if former law enforcement members could serve on the commission.
Most Popular
Comments / 0