Board of Supervisors Rubberstamps Sheriff’s Military Arsenal
Newsletter Post, November 2022
The State Legislature has given the Board of Supervisors a new power and responsibility to protect our community from the unnecessary militarization of local law enforcement. (AB 481, Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 7070 et seq.) On October 25, Marin County Supervisors abdicated their statutory duty and granted blanket approval for the Sheriff’s unlimited use of a large military arsenal.
Marin Sheriff’s Military Arsenal—Like many local law enforcement agencies across the country, the Marin County Sheriff’s Department possesses hundreds of pieces of military equipment. These include, an armored vehicle with an eleven-foot battering ram, five submachine guns, 60 AR 15 semi-automatic assault rifles, 32 Select-Fire Rifles, three sniper rifles with a half-mile kill range, 50 Flash-Bang grenades, 36 cannisters of tear gas, door-busting breaching rounds, a tactical robot, numerous surveillance drones, and many other things.
The stockpiling of military weaponry by local law enforcement began with the passage of the National Defense Authorization Act in 1996. That Act empowered the Defense Department to give surplus military hardware to police agencies. Since that time, nearly 10,000 jurisdictions have received more than $7 billion of military equipment under this Act, most of it in the last decade. ACLU.org.
New State Law Strictly Curtails Military Equipment Use—All of us, and particularly our Black and Brown communities, face grave harms from the use of military weapons and equipment by local law enforcement. The California Legislature has found,
“[A]cquisition 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…. Military equipment is more frequently deployed in low-income Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities.” (AB 481, Section 1(a).)
To address these and other specified harms, the Legislature has banned the acquisition and use of military equipment by law enforcement, effective November 1, 2022, except in narrowly prescribed circumstances. (AB 481, Cal. Gov. Code sec. 7071). California law enforcement agencies are prohibited from using any military equipment unless their local government body finds that,
“(A) The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve … officer and civilian safety [and]
(B) [A military equipment use policy is in place that] will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.” (AB 481, Cal. Gov. Code Sec. 7071(d)(1), emphasis added.)
These (and other) statutory requirements must be demonstrated for every item and quantity of military equipment that the governing body chooses to allow. Id.
The Legislature has empowered local elected officials (in this case the County Board of Supervisors) to make the required determinations to safeguard our communities. AB 481 clearly and purposefully takes the decision about military equipment use out of the hands of local law enforcement agencies.
Sheriff Commandeers AB 481 Process—The Marin Sheriff’s Department sought to avoid the looming military weapons ban by commandeering the powers and authority vested in the Board of Supervisors under AB 481.
The Sheriff presented a proposed “Military Equipment Use Policy” for Board approval, claiming that the policy was “compliant with AB 481.” Scardina, Staff Report (October 11,2022). In fact, the Sheriff’s proposed policy failed on its face to meet the statutory requirements. The policy reflected a blanket authorization of the Department’s complete inventory of military equipment, as well as any unspecified military equipment that the Department might acquire “through any means.” The policy was not limited to specific items of military equipment that were, or could be, shown to be necessary under the statutory standards. Nor did the proposed policy contain any protections for public safety and civil rights as required by AB 481.
Beyond the facial inadequacy of the Sheriff’s proposed policy, the Sheriff’s own presentation to the Board contradicted his conclusory assertion that all the Department’s military equipment was “necessary” to provide “time, distance and cover.”
In his limited comments about specific weapons and incidents, the Sheriff conceded that not one of the Department’s many automatic and semi-automatic weapons had ever been needed or fired in an incident in the 25 years since their acquisition. Likewise, the battering ram and the “breaching rounds.” Plainly there are alternative to these weapons and the Department has been using them.
The Sheriff said there have been six “critical incidents” over the past ten years, but during the hearing he did not identify the specific military weapons, if any, that were used or deemed necessary in those incidents. The Sheriff’s repeated assertion, “it’s better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them,” belied his claim of necessity.
The Sheriff offered no information about the “nonmilitary” equipment available to the Department, nor did he indicate whether, when or why that equipment had ever proven insufficient to Marin’s public safety needs. No evidence was offered regarding Marin’s crime statistics, or how they might point to a demonstrated need for battlefield equipment.
Board Abdicates its Duty Under AB 481—The Board held two “readings” of the Sheriff’s proposed military weapons policy, on October 11 and 25, and voted unanimously on both occasions to approve the policy.
The MVFREE Police Team wrote, and many members spoke, imploring the Board to comply with its statutory obligations under AB 481. Some of these comments were covered in an article in the Marin IJ. Yet the Board ignored the statutory requirements at both hearings. Not a single word was spoken by any Board member concerning any of the mandatory findings that must precede the Board’s approval of any military equipment use. In direct contravention of the statute, the Board ceded the power to the Sheriff to “authorize” his own Department’s unfettered use of military equipment.
Never having discussed the issues the Board nevertheless claimed in its ordinance adopting the Sheriff’s policy, that it had made the finding required by AB 481. This performative exercise was echoed in the comments of Board members Connolly and Moulton-Peters on October 25. Both asserted their “support” for AB 481 and concern about law enforcement’s use of military weapons despite their votes to the contrary.
What is Next?—MVFREE is tracking how other jurisdictions are handling AB 481 and seeking opportunities to join with allies to press for better oversight and adherence to the statutory requirements. The County is in the process of developing some form of civilian oversight of the Sheriff’s Department. We will urge that body to investigate the Sheriff’s unnecessary use of military equipment. AB 481 establishes a process for annual review of military equipment in the hands of law enforcement. We will continue to follow these proceedings carefully and advocate for an end to militarized policing in Marin.