Governor Newsom gives Oakland an ultimatum on policing
Newsom took aim at the Oakland Police Commission who recently refused a city council directive to update the police pursuit policy
At his press conference on December 27, Governor Newsom issued an ultimatum to the City of Oakland: change the current police pursuit policy or risk losing current support from the California Highway Patrol (CHP):
We need to see some commensurate support and reforms and changes as it relates to policing here in Oakland in order to consider extending this state subsidized partnership. We specifically are going to need to see changes in the pursuit policy in Oakland.
CHP’s commitment to Oakland policing over the past year has been exceptionally impactful, resulting in over 1400 arrests, including 155 felons arrested via vehicle pursuits and confiscation of 139 firearms. This represents a 30% boost to the 4700 of the arrests made by the entire Oakland Police Department in 2023. CHP Deputy Commissioner Ezery Beauchamp noted this effort has certainly contributed to the reduction in crime reported in 2024 compared to 2023.
It’s an extreme outlier in the state of California and so we need to see this pursuit policy changed.
—Governor Newsom
Newsom went on to call out the Oakland police commission as irresponsible in their duty to the safety of Oakland residents because they declined to change the pursuit policy when tasked to do so by the Oakland City Council:
In July, I wrote a letter to the police commission. I wrote a letter to the city council. I wrote a letter to local leaders and the mayor at the time requesting some common sense, not going back to an extreme. We're not looking for an old binary here. We're trying to take best practices across the state, for that matter across the nation. It's been a decade now since that policy was reverted and [we asked them] to update it. In September the police commission had that opportunity to do so, and they decided not to do it.
Deputy Commissioner Beauchamp noted that Oakland’s pursuit policy has gotten so lax that criminals are shocked when they are stopped in Oakland by the CHP:
Criminals are fully aware that in certain communities and municipalities, when the lights come on, the police are not allowed to chase them. We have had CHP officers who pursue individuals and, upon arresting them, have had the criminals tell us they didn't think we were allowed to chase them. This type of situation only benefits the criminals; it does not benefit the people that are being victimized here in California by crime.
Over the past year, CHP conducted 500 chases. In contrast, the Oakland Police Department, with a much larger patrol force than CHP, conducted about 65.
In the public meeting of the police commission on September 19, 2024, 100 residents of Oakland implored the commission to revise restrictions and restore police chase capabilities. They highlighted to the Commission that “Oakland’s businesses are being targeted almost on a daily basis and we need to help our small business owners….it is a plea to help our city thrive.”
Despite the pleas from residents, the exhortations from the Governor, and the exceptionally high crime rates in Oakland, the police commission refused to alter the policy. They argued that allowing chases would hurt trust with “low income and people of color”, result in more injuries, and have little impact on crime. They based their arguments largely on pre-determined philosophies of “de-escalation” of police engagement, and the views of one consultant, Geoffrey Alpert, who admitted to having no specific knowledge of Oakland’s issues. They made their decision despite evidence from the Oakland Police Department (OPD) and the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) that highlighted the deficiencies and consequences of the pursuit policy.
At the Governor’s press conference, Bishop Bob Jackson, Pastor of the Acts Full Gospel Church, urged a change in the pursuit policy: “we need to change the charter around so it reflects what’s going on today and not what went on yesterday.” His comments reflect a frustration with the police commission who aims to restrict and discipline police based on conditions that existed 10-20 years ago, rather than on the realities of Oakland’s streets and OPD operations today.
OPD’s pursuit policy is the most restrictive in the state
The current pursuit driving policy was established in 2014 by Department General Order J-04, and supplemented with two special orders and a training bulletin, which limits officers to pursue suspects only for violent crimes and/or crimes involving a firearm (3). Officers have to assess 19 risk factors prior to initiating a pursuit.1 In 2022, the Chief of Police instituted further restrictions (Special order 9212) that pursuits cannot exceed 50 mph except with approval from the watch commander, and that all supervisors or commanders who approve a pursuit are considered “involved personnel”.
Since then, police pursuits and associated arrests in Oakland decreased significantly despite the large jump in citywide crime rate—from 130 pursuits with 34 arrests in 2022, to 85 pursuits with 12 arrests in 2023, to 65 pursuits projected for 2024.
Governor Newsom stated that Oakland’s pursuit policy “is an outlier in the state of California and it may be an outlier in the United States of America.”
Someone that literally puts people's lives at risk right in front of an officer in a vehicle, that officer cannot under this extreme pursuit policy here in Oakland pursue that suspect.
—Governor Newsom
The Office of Inspector General conducted a study to compare Oakland with other similar jurisdictions, including San Francisco, San Jose and Los Angeles. The study shows that Oakland’s pursuit policy is the most restrictive in terms of when pursuit is authorized. Oakland is also the only department with a maximum speed limit for police vehicles. Oakland’s policy is also more restrictive than other large cities, such as Detroit and Washington, DC.
Video source: Henry K. Lee, KTVU
Oakland Police Commission was tasked to recommend updates to the 2014 pursuit policy
The police commission was created in 2016 to increase oversight of police policy and procedures.2
In May 2024, the Oakland City Council asked the police commission to propose changes to the pursuit policy. In response, the police commission conducted a formal review of the policy, and issued its decision in September. The review included public meetings and formation of an ad-hoc committee which included presentations from the Oakland Police Department and the Office of Inspector General.
During the last ad-hoc committee meeting, Dr. Geoffrey Alpert was invited to present. Alpert is a researcher on police pursuits, who was involved in the development of the original restrictions in 2014, and frequently cited in Oakland’s media to support restrictions on police chases. Alpert has also been a vocal critic of OPD for over ten years and recently told the press that Oakland would be “signing death warrants” if it allowed more chases.
However, the OIG, and even Dr. Alpert himself, called into question the relevance of his perspective to Oakland’s present situation. During the ad-hoc committee meeting, Alpert stated that he is not familiar with Oakland’s current policy or background. He gave a presentation about research he “had nothing to do with” in Roanoke, Virginia which showed that decreasing police pursuits had no effect on crime. And he was challenged by the OIG, who noted that the study pertained to a city with a violent crime ratio of 22.7, compared to Oakland’s which is 75. Alpert confessed that “my understanding is that’s anecdotal, it’s not empirical” and that he could not actually explain the conclusions of that study. At the end of the meeting, Alpert confessed “I don’t know what’s happening in Oakland…and without proper research you don’t know if there is a big problem.”
Regardless, commissioners apparently had already made up their minds. Presentations from OPD and OIG, which highlighted the deficiencies and consequences of the pursuit policy, also did not move their view. Regina Jackson, who is an ad-hoc committee member appointed by the Chair and a former commissioner, reiterated that “as a community leader my concern is who gets hurt in the process” and that she is “appreciating the data and the fact that’s all saying that…crime is rogue, pursuit does not sound like it’s the answer.”
Vice Chair of the Commission, Wilson Riles, concluded: “I know that as a commission, from the very beginning, we declared that we wanted deescalation and to value human life within Oakland, and pursuit, you know, sounds like escalation to me.”
The police commission declined to change the pursuit policy
Commissioner Riles released a draft of the police commission's findings on the pursuit policy in September. It did not recommend any changes to the pursuit policy. They concluded that Oakland does not have a restrictive policy (contradicting the OIG’s findings), and used Alpert’s presentation as supporting evidence (despite Alpert’s admission that he could not explain the findings of the study he presented). Riles further argued that chases are a form of police aggression that would destroy trust with low income residents and “people of color” and risk increased harm:
Many of the pursuits are taking place within the Flatlands community where there are low income and people of color and that its very important that our police department maintain trust with that community....The number of pursuits in California and the country is clear evidence that any increase in aggressive pursuits will result in increased injuries and possibly deaths and collisions.”
Moreover, commissioner Riles suggested that the policy review was a politically motivated abandonment of two decades of police reforms: “It is hoped that the looseness of management and oversight that resulted in the dastardly behavior of the Riders and that resulted in the scandals that followed will not be forgotten in the ‘heat’ of politics.” He further suggested that the city council’s directive for a policy review was merely a reaction to San Francisco’s recent change in pursuit policy by ballot measure. He also questioned the Governor’s data from CHP.
Three weeks later, the police commission voted to accept the draft findings, and did not recommend any changes to the pursuit policy. The decision acted against the wishes of the Governor, the intent of the city council, the reports of the OPD and OIG, and the pleas of 100 residents who urged the Commission to change the policy in order to curb the increased crime in Oakland (timestamp 1:37).
The police commission also recommended “that the Council Public Safety Committee take every opportunity to pierce the many misperceptions about crime and criminality; and educate our public in Oakland about evidence-based and fact-based truths.” This statement would appear to gaslight Oakland residents, the city council, and the state police—suggesting that the crime they are experiencing is not real, but just a misperception of reality.
Finally, Commissioner Riles repeatedly emphasized that the Public Safety Committee (one of the four standing committees of the Oakland City Council) take more lead in actually working with OPD without endangering citizens and supporting them in alternative ways, including technology, neighborhood policing and neighborhood councils. Riles noted further that it is the Public Safety Committee’s responsibility to address the pursuit policy—passing the city’s urgent need for effective policing and public safety back to the city council, while insisting that those actions do not include restoring police pursuits.
What is the future of the pursuit policy
Although the police commission declined to address the pursuit policy in September, it remains to be seen if the new commissioners will reconsider their position. Newly appointed Commissioner Samuel Dawit has asked about follow-up and reevaluation during recent commission meetings. Commissioner Riles replied “There is nothing to implement since we didn’t recommend any changes to the current policy. What we did recommend was that the Public Safety Committee take some actions...of supporting additional technical mechanisms...without vehicle pursuit.”
In the Governor’s December press conference, Councilmember Jenkins stated that he and the city administrator are working on a policy to present to the OPD police chief. This will then be presented to the police commission. Governor Newsom asked the police commission to call a special meeting to reconsider the pursuit policy to “address the crisis at hand.” He continued, “I would expect and demand that they do so, and the demand comes with this: not a closed fist but an open hand of support. But that cannot continue in an open way, as it has in the past, without expecting something in return.”
In a prepared statement, Commission Chair Ricardo Garcia-Acosta stated “there is still significant work to be done in regards to OPD's pursuit policy and practices. We give our commitment to respond to the call for action and to do our part to work with city leadership to make Oakland a safer place to work, live, and visit—by implementing smart policy and best practices to deter reckless behavior in our city streets.”
However, it appears that the police commission’s intent may not be to restore OPD’s pursuit authorities, but rather to attempt to restrict those of CHP instead. Chair Garcia-Acosta alluded: “as long as they [CHP] operate on the streets of Oakland, we need to continue to explore...what practices they follow.”
Now, with the threat of losing state policing subsidies, and increasing scrutiny from an Oakland public suffering from unsustainable crime, it remains to be seen if and how the Commission will act. And if they do not act, will the city council itself override the inaction of the police commission?
The next meeting of the police commission is scheduled for January 10.
Tags: Perspectives, Police Commission, Policing
Excerpt from OPD General Order J-04:
RISK FACTORS
Involved personnel shall consider all Risk Factors, in determining whether to
initiate and continue a vehicle pursuit, including but not limited to:
The volume of vehicular and pedestrian traffic in the area;
Traffic conditions;
Location of pursuit;
Safety of the public in the area of the pursuit (e.g., the presence of children, the elderly or disabled, the proximity to hospital or school zones in the vicinity of the pursuit);
Safety of the pursuing officers;
Speeds of both officer and suspect vehicles;
Familiarity of the officer and supervisor with the area of the pursuit;
Road and weather conditions;
Time of day;
Quality of communications between the pursuing units, the Communications Section, and/or supervisor;
The performance capabilities of the police vehicle or the operation of the emergency lights and siren;
Availability of air or field support;
Whether the officer has a ride-along passenger with him/her;
Whether the suspect is known and can be apprehended at a later time;
Whether the suspect is known to be a juvenile;
When a non-suspect vehicle and/or pedestrian accident has occurred during a pursuit;
The safety of occupants in the fleeing vehicle;
The distance between the pursuit and fleeing vehicles is so great that further pursuit is futile; and
The pursued vehicle's location is no longer known.
The Oakland Police Commission is one of the most powerful in the nation. In 2016, Oakland voters passed Measure LL that established the Oakland Police Commission, which was adopted by city council in 2018. The commission’s purpose would be to review and approve or reject many changes in OPD policies and procedures.
In 2019, the Commission prevented OPD from using their BearCat armored vehicles, in favor of using those funds for initiatives in violence prevention. They also voted to require the police to submit all military-weapon grant proposals to the Commission before application. In 2020, the Commission passed a revision of the Use of Force Policy, which required de-escalation tactics prior to use of force, and was described as “one of the most progressive use of force policies in the country.” These policies will be re-reviewed by the Commission this year.
The Commission also has the power to fire the police chief, a unique power compared to other Commissions in the nation. They recently fired former Chief Anne Kirkpatrick, who was later found to be wrongfully terminated for blowing the whistle on commissioner misconduct, resulting in more than $330,000 award for damages and a further $1.5 million settlement with the city.
There are seven regular members and two alternate members. The Mayor nominates three regular members and one alternate member. A selection panel is also created, and composed of nine members, eight members which are appointed by each Council member and one member appointed by the Mayor. The panel selects five Commissioners (four regular and one alternate). All nominees need city council approval. The term for each Commissioner is three years, and are limited to no more than two consecutive terms. The city council can remove any Commissioner for cause. Any Commissioner can also be removed by a majority vote of the Commission in certain situations.
The city charter does not specify any requirements or qualifications to become a commissioner, other than passing a background check, and the prohibition of (a) attorneys who are prosecuting lawsuits against the police department or recently resolved one, (b) current police officers of any jurisdiction, (c) former police officers of Oakland, (d) current city employees, and (e) employees and representatives of a police officers association. The prohibition of attorneys with conflicts of interest was proposed to be eliminated in a recent amendment to the city charter, but was ultimately retained by the city council following public comment. The city is mandated to “use best efforts to appoint individuals to the Selection Panel and the police commission who are broadly representative of Oakland's diversity and who represent communities experiencing the most frequent contact with the Department.” Once appointed, commissioners are required to participate in a 14 element training curriculum during their first year of service.
The current police commission is composed of individuals with a history of violence prevention and victim’s rights, who explicitly continued to restrict OPDs policies. Currently, Ricardo Garcia Acosta is the Chair and Wilson Riles Vice Chair of the commission. Mr. Riles was also an Oakland city council member from 1979 to 1992. In 2022, the city settled a lawsuit filed by Mr. Riles that alleged the city and police violated his civil rights when they forcefully arrested him in city hall. The city denied any wrongdoing and did not admit to Riles’ allegations.
Meanwhile, the political hacks destroying this city cherry pick one number – homicide – which dipped a bit (as if the murder rate was now acceptable) in 2024 instead of all the seriously rising crime, and managed to get it in their complicit publicity sheets & broadcasts that used to be legit news outlets. Thank you Oakland Report for publishing the responsible story.
Poor Communication and Knee-Jerk "Takes" Diminish the Public Discourse Around Policing
Unfortunately, the entire discourse around the pursuit policy is a case of unexamined assumptions and quick answers being allowed to overcome much of the nuance and difficult choices that need to be made around policing in Oakland. Gavin is certainly guilty of this; he's purposefully used the idea of the "pursuit policy" as being the one thing that is holding back law enforcement in Oakland as a way to address the fact that OPD, as an extension of Oakland's City government, is not performing well. He does not, however, explain that the pursuit policy is a metaphor or stand in for this poor performance; instead he acts as if everything will be fantastic if the City simply changes the policy. That is not true.
At the same time, the "other side" in this debate also makes assumptions based solely on feelings or beliefs that aren't supported by either data or the understanding of how management of complex organizations (such as local government's law enforcement function) really works. This is most evident in the breathtakingly bad takes from partisans such as those on the Police Commission or those who attempt active control of the Police Commission's work (e.g., members of the Coalition for Police Accountability or the Anti Police Terror Project.
To close this first section of the comment, let's see some of the quotes that show how poorly these institutional actors - Gov. Newsom on one hand, the Police Commission on the other - communicate with the public, and actually work on informing, governing, and leading. These are directly from the above post:
Newsom: "We need to see some commensurate support and reforms and changes as it relates to policing here in Oakland in order to consider extending this state subsidized partnership. We specifically are going to need to see changes in the pursuit policy in Oakland."
The first sentence here is absolutely accurate. Policing in Oakland is terrible, for a wide variety of reasons. However, the second sentence makes the facile and, frankly, not very accurate claim that the pursuit policy is one of the biggest, if not the biggest, reason that OPD and the City do not perform their function well. This is nonsense. There are a whole host of reasons why OPD does not do well; pursuits are a symptom of that poor performance, not the root cause. Gavin, having many smart people working for and with him, and having access to people with actual experience in Oakland (e.g., Libby and her aides), should know this; one could just point to Justin Berton's piece in the Chronicle that not-so-subtly pointed out one of the true vectors of the extreme poor performance of OPD, which are the actions of the independent monitoring team, the plaintiffs attorneys, the federal judge, City leadership (or lack thereof) and OPD's own management.
Police Commission (Chair Riles): "It is hoped that the looseness of management and oversight that resulted in the dastardly behavior of the Riders and that resulted in the scandals that followed will not be forgotten in the ‘heat’ of politics."
Author Mandal did a good job of exposing the unwarranted assumptions inherent in Riles' arguments, to wit that police chases are intrinsically aggressive, unacceptable actions that police should either never or rarely use. We see some of this argument in the comments, backed up with unhelpful anecdotal "evidence" that is mainly just fear-mongering. That fear-mongering often comes back to the point made by Riles in the quote above: that the police are basically just barely-held-back animals who, at the first slip of the leash, will be back to being the extreme examples of outright cruelty and corruption that were present during the "Riders" scandal. This is the fear that many oakland "reporters" trade on; every piece on OPD is a tome stuffed with the worst examples of police behavior and an inherent warning: any loosening of the "accountability regime" that blankets OPD will, without a doubt, lead directly back to the same behavior we saw from the Riders. Of course, it is not that simple.
Why Won't Just Changing the Pursuit Policy Help?
One of the problems (and there are a lot around OPD) is that it is easy to slip into debates about high-profile symptoms, like pursuits, and completely miss the things that cause some of the symptomatic poor performance from the City and OPD. For example, look at Special Order 9212 (the one that restricts police from going over 50 mph in pursuits absent express permission from a command officer). Why did then-Chief Armstrong institute this policy? Poor incentives. He was under pressure from one of the plaintiff's attorneys in the Riders lawsuit, and hoped to escape the NSA by simply acceding to their every wish. Pursuits were a very sensitive topic at the time, due to the tragically poor performance of two officers whose actions during an unauthorized pursuit included abandoning the scene of a collision after said pursuit where a bystander lost his life. The Chief hoped for a quick resolution, made a change to policy that was rash and rather unconsidered, and here we are.
That cycle - see symptomatic issue (often brought up from one corner of the commentariat or interested activist group milieu), make a knee-jerk decision that has far reaching impacts on community, police staff, morale, and organizational effectiveness, shrug, and repeat - has been the status quo at OPD, and by extension the City of Oakland, for at least 10 years. The City and OPD do not have a pursuit problem; they have a management problem. Until they fix that, tinkering around the edges will not fix any of this.