Vallejo police military equipment policy still falls short of state requirements, policy expert argues

VALLEJO – The Vallejo City Council approved a military equipment use policy for its police department earlier this month after years of failure to follow state law requiring the city to adopt a policy governing the purchase and use of the equipment, but a policy expert says that the city’s law still falls short of full compliance. 

The City Council unanimously adopted the policy at its Oct. 8 meeting, where Mayor Robert McConnell was absent. It is scheduled to take a second vote at its meeting Tuesday. 

But John Lindsay-Poland, Co-Director of the California Healing Justice program of the American Friends Service Committee and a consultant who works with elected officials, oversight bodies, law enforcement agencies, and community members to help craft law enforcement policy, told the Vallejo Sun he believes the policy is out of compliance with two state laws: AB 481, which set new statewide requirements on the use of military equipment, and AB 48, which set new restrictions on when officers can use force.

Several hours before the Oct. 8 meeting, Lindsay-Poland sent the councilmembers an email urging them to amend or have the policy amended before they approve it, and offering to consult with them about military equipment usage. No councilmembers requested that the department amend the policy.

Lindsay-Poland said the policy fails to meet the standards of California law in three ways: its guidelines for using less lethal projectiles and tear gas is insufficient because it “contains none of the restrictions or instruction on use of force law,” the department is not specific enough in its report to determine its full inventory of equipment, and the policy contains a provision not included in AB 481 that allows it to use military equipment in “exigent circumstances” without council approval.

In an interview with the Sun, Lindsey-Poland said that Vallejo police’s AB 481 policy for use of less lethal projectiles and tear gas “authorizes use of these weapons that is in violation of AB 48.” The policy allows officers to use these weapons “to control, restrain, or arrest a subject who is violent or demonstrates the intent to be violent.” The policy also states that “when reasonable, a verbal warning and opportunity to comply should precede the usage” of projectiles. Tear gas can be used for “crowd control” and “against barricaded suspects” if a commander determines “such force reasonably appears justified.”

AB 48, which went into effect in January of 2023, only allows the use of such weapons after using deescalation techniques, warning subjects repeatedly, and giving people an opportunity to disperse. Additionally, the law forbids aiming these weapons at the head, neck, or groin. Since Vallejo’s AB 481 policy doesn’t mention deescalation, repeated warnings, and where officers should or shouldn’t aim, Lindsay-Poland said it doesn’t follow the law.

“The policy leaves a lot of room for interpretation for officers,” said Lindsay-Poland. “They could use these weapons at their discretion.”

Vallejo Police spokesperson Sgt. Rashad Hollis told the Sun that Lindsay-Poland needs to read the department’s entire policy before passing judgment. He said department rules not covered in the AB 481 policy are covered elsewhere, such as its use of force policy. 

The department’s use of force policy does not allow officers to aim projectiles at the head, neck or groin “except when the officer reasonably believes the suspect poses an imminent threat of serious bodily injury or death to the officer or others.” The policy does not specifically require deescalation before shooting projectiles but says that deescalation shall be used “when possible and appropriate” before any use of force. It also says “a verbal warning” should precede shooting a projectile at a subject unless “it is not practicable due to the circumstances.”

The Vallejo Sun asked the state Department of Justice, which is responsible for overseeing AB 481 compliance, about the validity of Lindsay-Poland’s complaints. In response, an office spokesperson said the office was “unable to provide legal advice” but that the office had just issued an informational bulletin about the law.

The bulletin offers guidance to help law enforcement agencies comply with AB 481, and states that the law “supersedes any inconsistent city or county provisions” governing ownership and use of military equipment. The bulletin came shortly after a San Francisco Standard report showed that the San Francisco Police department bought drones without council approval and knowingly broke AB 481 to do so.

The Vallejo Police Department had fulfilled none of the AB 481's requirements until earlier this year, when the Vallejo Sun pointed them out. Within a week it publicly disclosed its inventory and released a draft of its military equipment use policy. It also hosted its first required community engagement meeting in May.

AB 481 was passed in 2021, shortly after police injured protestors and journalists using military equipment like tear gas and less lethal projectiles during nationwide protests sparked by Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin’s 2020 murder of George Floyd. Less lethal projectiles, including rubber bullets and beanbags rounds, are named as such because, while they are less lethal than standard ammunition, they can and have killed people. 

The law requires that departments fulfill several steps before using military equipment, like crafting a military use policy, disclosing their inventory, getting approval from an oversight body and hosting a community engagement meeting. 

Although the department had not fulfilled any of the law’s requirements for about a two year timeframe, it had used such equipment during that period. According to Lindsay-Poland, its usage of military equipment without following the law’s requirements “could compromise any prosecution of any arrest that came out of its usage.”

In his email to city leaders, Lindsay-Poland also discouraged the city from allowing the department to possess or use scattershot munitions. Scattershot munitions, according to Lindsay-Poland, “disperse from a grenade” in an “indiscriminate” manner and are “thus impossible to control against anyone.” They aren’t explicitly banned by any California law, but human rights groups like UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Amnesty International, and Physicians for Human Rights have called for them to be banned from law enforcement use.

In an email to the Vallejo Sun, McConnell said he had “mixed feelings” about Lindsay-Poland’s concerns. He told the Sun that “having been in combat himself,” he believes officers have “an absolute duty to provide the best possible equipment that can be obtained.” He said Lindsay-Poland was a Quaker, and that he was concerned that “his religious desires are motivating his thoughts.” The American Friends Service Committee was founded by Quakers, who are adherents of a Christian denomination which promotes peace and non-violence. But Lindsay-Poland told the Sun he’s not a Quaker or a member of any church.

McConnell said that he does have some concerns with “some of the particulars Mr. Lindsay-Poland raises.” McConnell’s concerns were about scattershot munitions.

“When he says that a device lacks accurate targeting capacity that bothers me considerably,” McConnell said. “Targeting capacity needs to be specifically oriented towards a specific target. Otherwise, it is like throwing a grenade, making fragments into a room, and the bad guy will not be caring about the good guys. That’s objectionable to me."

In his email, Lindsay-Poland identified two types of scattershot munition: 40mm stinger rounds, and 60-caliber pellets. He also said that the department could have more, but it’s difficult to know because the department has not fulfilled its legal obligation, under AB 481, to fully specify in all cases what model of equipment it has.

Lindsay-Poland also told the council that he believes the Vallejo police policy is not in compliance with AB 481 because it contains a provision that is not mentioned in the law. This provision allows the department to obtain or borrow new equipment temporarily “in exigent circumstances” without City Council approval, if the chief of police or a designee authorizes it, as long as it notifies council within 30 days of using it. “Exigent circumstances” is not mentioned in AB 481 and the phrase is undefined in the Vallejo police policy.

“The Vallejo Police Department seeks to give itself a completely blank check for using deadly weapons, with no approved policy at all for their use,” Lindsay-Poland wrote in his letter. “The exigent circumstances provision should be eliminated from the policy.”

Lindsay-Poland told the Sun that its failure to fully comply with AB 481 is not atypical, as he’s noticed many other departments are also not in full compliance. But he’s still worried about Vallejo, which has historically been one of the most violent agencies in California with one of the highest rates of shootings and use of force.

“These loopholes and lack of specificity that don’t fully comply with the law are not unusual,” Lindsay-Poland said. “But because Vallejo police have this history of abuses, it needs a much more specific and clear policy.”