If you look at the six police-related bills that Gov. Newsom is going to have to sign or veto in the next few weeks, you get a good idea of what Democratic legislators are thinking about in these turbulent times.
All six bills can be described as “police reform” of one kind or another. All were drafted by Democrats, and are in response to George Floyd’s murder in May, 2020, when there was a national rush to “do something” about the police, especially among Black Lives Matter-type activists and Progressives. It was never clear from the beginning just exactly what that “something” was; but it was clear to “reformers” they had to take advantage of the public mood (amplified by the media), before passion for “reform” evaporated and they lost their chance.
The six bills fall into three areas: misconduct, training and practice. The first, misconduct, became a tripwire for police reform after Derek Chauvin’s knee-to-the-neck killing of Floyd. That occurred against a backdrop of years of accusations of police misconduct—for instance, here in Oakland, we had the notorious case of The Riders more than 20 years ago, in which some Oaklanders claimed they had been victims of “police brutality.” Senate Bill 2 would make it much harder for police officers to retain their jobs, or be hired in another jurisdiction, if they have been “convicted of a felony.” SB2 also ends certain “immunity provisions” that historically have shielded cops from civil lawsuits.
Two bills are about police training. AB89 establishes “minimum qualifications” for police hiring, including a minimum age (21) and completion of “a modern policing degree program” within the California Community Colleges, to be in effect by June, 2023. The bill also includes “financial assistance for students of historically underserved and disadvantaged communities.”
A related bill is AB26. It requires police officers “to immediately report potential excessive force [by a colleague] to a superior officer.” This provision clearly was prompted by the failure of Chauvin’s fellow police officers to stop him from killing Floyd. AB26 also protects whistle-blowing cops from retaliation.
The third area concerns practice: things that police routinely do in the performance of their jobs. AB481 puts certain limits of the use of “military equipment” by police departments. This issue became volatile in Oakland after cops attempted to break up downtown riots with armored vehicles, projectile launchers, tear gas and flashbang grenades. Three council members (Kaplan, Kalb and Gallo) have been among the most vocal in their criticisms of OPD in this area.
Another practice-related bill is AB118. It creates and implements “community-based organizations” to respond to certain 911 calls, rather than the police. It also funds “qualified grantees” up to $250,000 a year, in order “to lessen the reliance on law enforcement agencies as first responders to crisis situations.” AB118 is in many respects a statewide version of Oakland’s MACRO program.
The third practice-related bill is AB48, which is closely related to AB481 in that it “would prohibit the use of kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents by any law enforcement agency to disperse any assembly, protest, or demonstration.” Such “kinetic energy projectiles or chemical agents” include expandable batons, electronic control devices such as tasers, and pepper spray.
All of these bills are well-meaning. But I can’t help but feel that they were hastily devised in an atmosphere of witch-hunting. So great has been the concerted pressure on legislators by certain members of the public, and by a media obsessed with finding instances of “police misconduct,” that politicians feel they have to respond, or risk losing their jobs. We can’t know what the long-term ramifications of these six bills are. Assuming Gov. Newsom remains in office, he may not approve them all. One thing I hope he’ll keep in mind is that his utmost duty is to protect public safety. Riots do happen, as do violent sideshows and criminal rampages, and the police are the only force that can control them and protect us. How many tools can we take away from cops before we hobble them in the performance of their duties?
There are other potential problems. One concerns morale among police officers, which is at or near an all-time low here in Oakland. How will morale at OPD be impacted if cops have to be, in effect, vigilantes on each other? Citizens should keep in mind that police morale is as important as morale among the soldiers we send overseas to protect us. Another problem is immunity. Ending it has vast legal implications and raises the question of whether or not cops can be harassed by angry or venal citizens who file frivolous lawsuits against them. Another huge potential problem concerns AB118’s funding of “community-based organizations” that respond to 911 calls. Oakland has a long, sad history of misuse and abuse of funds by unscrupulous groups that take advantage of the city’s endemic lack of oversight. Who are the “qualified grantees” who get $250,000, and who determines their qualifications? Few city employees have the time, inclination or authority to delve into these analyses, and it can be difficult if not impossible to determine what works and what doesn’t and what is an outright scam.
On the other hand, some of the proposed bills make perfect sense. Raising the minimum age for cops to 21 would ensure a bit more maturity and reflectiveness on their part. And requiring completion of Community College courses to be a cop also makes sense, especially given reports that some new hires in OPD are woefully lacking in basic education. We want smart cops working for us, not dummies.
Steve Heimoff