Gripped by Oversight

How the Police Commission controls OPD’s equipment and operational effectiveness

Each year, the Police Commission is required to review the Oakland Police Department’s (OPD) “Militarized Equipment Use Report,” as mandated by state law. This report details all militarized equipment used in the past year, including rifles, drones, robots, and armored vehicles. As part of the report, OPD may request authorization to replace or expand its current inventory. The Police Commission has the independent authority to approve or reject these requests.

During the June 12 Police Commission meeting, OPD Chief Floyd Mitchell criticized the committee’s broad recommendation to “eliminate the use of military equipment in Oakland,” saying he had no chance to respond and stressing, “From my standpoint, being a military veteran, being a police officer for over 30 years, being a SWAT commander … the [BearCat] vehicle is meant to save lives.” Some commissioners said the recommendations were too broad, calling for more detail and voicing support for drones and pole cameras.

On July 16, OPD held a public Town Hall, where department leaders presented the types of militarized equipment in use and explained their functions. During the meeting, a member of the commission’s ad hoc committee distributed “talking points” to attendees, emphasizing the view that such equipment harms the community and urging the commission to reject any proposals for new acquisitions. One recommendation in the talking points called for the rejection of new drone acquisitions, stating: “Expanding drone use is another way Oakland PD is militarizing our communities.” This assertion overlooked existing public support for law enforcement’s use of drones, particularly in situations aimed at reducing high-speed pursuits and improving officer and public safety.

At the Town Hall, OPD described how most of its equipment is outdated and well past its intended lifespan and the requests for new items are largely aimed at replacing aging equipment rather than expanding its arsenal. OPD will be requesting new equipment to replace old drones, armored vehicles, breaching tools and rifles.

The commission now holds sole authority to approve or deny OPD’s requests for new militarized equipment, which gives it significant influence over the department’s operational capabilities.

Oakland’s unprecedented approach to militarized equipment

California has specific laws that regulate the use of militarized equipment by law enforcement agencies. Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481), passed in 2021, requires local governing bodies to annually review and approve law enforcement’s use of such equipment. The process must also include opportunities for public input.

This legislation was introduced in response to high-profile protests and incidents involving police use of force. A recent bulletin from the California Attorney General clarified that “militarized equipment” is not limited to items acquired from the military or similar to military gear. AB 481 defines militarized equipment broadly to include items such as drones and unmanned ground vehicles, armored vehicles, firearms of .50 caliber or greater, flashbang grenades, and tear gas

In response to AB 481, the Oakland City Council adopted a local ordinance in 2021 (OMC 9.65) that establishes stricter regulations. Under this ordinance, the Police Commission is required to review the annual Militarized Equipment Use (MEU) Report and submit its recommendations to the city council. OPD must complete this process before seeking funding for new equipment.

Oakland’s ordinance imposes significantly stronger oversight restrictions than those required by AB 481 as it bestows unilateral veto power to the commission for acquisition of new equipment or changes to use policies and procedures.

Oakland’s ordinance gives the Police Commission a gatekeeping role in militarized equipment

If the Oakland Police Department seeks to acquire new militarized equipment, even as a replacement for existing items, it must first obtain approval from the Police Commission. Oakland’s ordinance outlines specific criteria that the commission must evaluate, including the availability of alternatives, whether the proposed use policy protects public welfare, and whether the equipment is cost-effective.

OPD provides this information in detailed “Impact reports” for each type of equipment. These reports outline the intended use, potential for misuse, safeguards in place, and any anticipated impacts.

The commission must also review whether using the equipment might unfairly affect people based on their race, religion, gender identity, political beliefs, or other personal traits. Even if there's a risk of unfair impact, the commission can still approve the equipment as long as they recognize that risk and the “need to avoid them proactively.” (OMC 9.65.020(C)).

The commission must also decide that the equipment is needed despite available alternatives.

The commission’s recommendation is a mandatory step before OPD can pursue funding for new equipment, either from city council or grants. Without this recommendation, the city council cannot consider the proposal (OMC 9.65.020(A)(3)). This provision effectively gives the Police Commission sole authority to permit OPD’s acquisition of militarized equipment such as rifles, drones, and armored vehicles.

When enacted, the ordinance was considered unprecedented for giving such broad, unilateral power to an unelected civilian oversight body composed entirely of volunteers.

According to the ordinance, the commission can only approve the use or acquisition of this equipment if it determines that the city’s need for the equipment outweighs the risks to public welfare and civil rights. Therefore, the commission alone decides whether the harm or risks of the equipment outweigh its benefits to public safety.

Commission ad hoc committee urges blanket elimination of all OPD militarized equipment

The Police Commission convened a Militarized Equipment Ad Hoc Committee to review the annual Militarized Equipment Use (MEU) report. The committee included three commissioners, members of OPD, and two subject matter experts from the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC).

John Lindsey-Poland, director of AFSC, also served on the committee in 2022 when the commission and OPD collaborated on revisions to the use policies for chemical munitions, robots, mobile command centers, and other equipment. Both Lindsey-Poland and Jennifer Tu, also from AFSC, are vocal advocates for police demilitarization. In their report, Equipped for War, they argue there is misuse of militarized equipment by police departments nationwide and call on elected officials to “heed widespread community calls for demilitarization and to reinvest resources used for militarized policing into community needs such as mental health care, housing, drug treatment, health, employment, and reparations.”

At committee meetings, OPD presented their MEU report, which included details on the types and frequency of equipment used, upcoming equipment requests, and the financial impact of deployments. In 2024, the most frequently used items were rifles, armored vehicles, and drones. OPD also reported that no citizen complaints had been filed with either the Internal Affairs Bureau or the Civilian Police Review Agency regarding the direct deployment of this equipment.

Lindsey-Poland and Tran focused on the report’s compliance with AB481, recommending further reporting on training and use policies. Alternate commissioner Omar Farmer concentrated on OPD’s use of the BearCat armored vehicle. The Police Commission had previously recommended decommissioning the BearCat in 2021, but that recommendation was non-binding. Under city ordinance, such a decision requires city council approval, which was never brought to a vote. As a result, OPD remains in compliance with the ordinance, which states that use of militarized equipment must cease only after city council approval (OMC 9.65.020(G)(3)(b)). In response to Farmer’s repeated inquiries, OPD offered examples of BearCat alternatives and suggested holding separate meetings to explore the issue further.

On June 12, the committee released a draft review authored by Farmer, which recommended that “most of the militarized equipment and paramilitary tactics and practices should be eliminated from use by the Oakland Police Department (OPD) as soon as practicable.” The draft stated that such equipment can trigger trauma in communities already experiencing high rates of Complex Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD), where “over-policing and tough-on-crime paramilitary tactics and practices play a role.” The draft did not assess the current effectiveness of the equipment but asserted: “There is no empirical evidence to suggest that this equipment makes our city safer. On the contrary, studies indicate that using militarized equipment in a police department is no more successful in reducing crime than for departments that do not.”

The conclusions of the Police Commission draft review closely reflect the findings of AFSC’s Equipped for War report, which cites research on SWAT deployments to argue that such teams have no measurable effect on overall crime rates. The report extrapolates those findings to militarized equipment more broadly.

Police Chief blindsided by committee’s review

The committee’s recommendations were presented to the full Police Commission, OPD and the public during their meeting on June 12. The chair of the ad hoc committee, commissioner Wilson Riles, Jr introduced their recommendation to “eliminate the use of military equipment in Oakland.” Alternate commissioner Omar Farmer emphasized the harms of militarization, stating, “When OPD comes rolling through these communities with the BearCat and other military equipment such as tactical gear, they appear to many of those folks who suffer from PTSD to be akin to an occupying force.”

However, commissioner Sam Dawit pushed back, arguing that this equipment is necessary for officer and public safety. He cited research showing that neighboring jurisdictions use similar vehicles and emphasized their life-saving potential. Specifically, he defended the continued use of the BearCat.

OPD Chief Floyd Mitchell expressed surprise at the committee’s recommendation, stating he had not been given an opportunity to respond or prepare a rebuttal prior to the meeting. He argued that the commission was overstepping, as the agenda item was to review and approve the report—not to recommend removing essential equipment. Chief Mitchell remarked:

“From my standpoint, being a military veteran, being a police officer for over 30 years, being a SWAT commander … and being involved in many critical incidents and rescue missions—the [BearCat] vehicle is meant to save lives. I carry a weapon on my side almost every day because I’m a police officer. I hope to God I don’t ever have to use it, and I hope to God that none of my officers have to use theirs, but we have to have it because we live in a society that is surrounded by evil.”

Both commissioner Dawit and commissioner Angela Jackson-Castain agreed that the committee’s recommendations were too broad, and they need to detail what equipment is to be eliminated. Castain voiced her support for drones and pole cameras.

Ultimately, the commission voted to postpone its decision on the recommendations to allow for further committee review and additional public input at an upcoming Town Hall meeting.

Activists and commissioners shape public narrative on OPD equipment

As required by Assembly Bill 481, law enforcement agencies must hold a public forum to discuss their annual Militarized Equipment Use (MEU) Report. On July 16, OPD held a Town Hall meeting to fulfill this requirement. During the meeting, OPD presented the report, explained the purpose and function of each type of equipment, and responded to public questions. Feedback from this forum will inform the Police Commission’s final review of OPD’s militarized equipment.

Prior to the meeting, John Lindsay-Poland distributed a set of “Talking Points” to audience members, aiming to influence the tone and content of public comments. His document characterized OPD’s equipment requests as efforts to expand its arsenal, rather than replace outdated or obsolete items. It also argued that acquiring additional drones amounted to “militarizing our communities.”

Several attendees then echoed the provided talking points during the meeting, asking pre-scripted questions and challenging OPD’s justifications. Many of the concerns raised had already been addressed in earlier ad hoc committee discussions but were presented in the talking points as unresolved or unsubstantiated. OPD representatives responded to each question, explaining the safety protocols, intended uses, and operational challenges of working with aging equipment and an understaffed department.

When asked whether OPD’s equipment is comparable to that used by agencies such as the California Highway Patrol or federal law enforcement, OPD officials rejected the comparison. They noted that those agencies operate with significantly larger budgets and have access to far more advanced equipment than Oakland does.

The commission controls OPD’s effectiveness

Oakland’s Police Commission wields unprecedented authority over the Oakland Police Department’s access to militarized equipment which directly affects the department’s operational readiness. Under the city’s strict local ordinance, the commission holds unilateral power to approve or block equipment acquisitions, even for replacements, based on broad criteria including racial impact, public welfare, and cost-effectiveness.

This unchecked gatekeeping role has intensified tensions between police leadership and oversight advocates, particularly as the commission’s ad hoc committee pushes for the elimination of key tools like the BearCat and drones.

The commission’s actions, which often appear to driven and amplified by ideologically motivated actors, risk undermining OPD’s ability to respond to emergencies, protect officers, and serve the public effectively. As the commission continues to shape what tools OPD can and cannot use, it is also redefining the very limits of police capability in Oakland.

Tags: Police Commission, Policing, Public Safety