The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office released its first annual Military Equipment Use Policy, detailing the more than $2 million worth of equipment in its ownership as part of a state mandate process aimed at expanding transparency around the stock of military-grade weapons held by any given jurisdiction.
“This policy and the equipment covered by it is part of our continuing effort to build trust with the communities we serve while, at the same time, providing us with the tools we need to protect life under the most difficult circumstances a law enforcement officer may encounter,” said Lt. Eamonn Allen, who oversees professional standards for the department, during Tuesday’s Board of Supervisors meeting.
During the required update from the Sheriff’s Office on the policy, Allen noted the Sheriff’s Office does not currently own any equipment directly handed down by the military or that is from companies who supply the military with equipment.
But the department does own equipment that falls under what the state defines as military equipment, based on interpretations of Assembly Bill 481, which took effect this January. In total, acquiring and maintaining the equipment has cost the department more than $2 million.
And the county has previously owned equipment handed down by the military that was returned some years ago, Allen noted.
According to the report, the county currently owns a Lanco Bearcat armed vehicle, a mobile command vehicle, two bean bag launchers and bean bag munition, three bomb squad robots, four .50 caliber semi-automatic rifles and ammunition, four 37 millimeter tear gas launchers and tear gas grenades, 10 pepperball launchers, 11 drones, 41 stingball grenades, 42 flashbang devices and 114 less-lethal launchers used to fire rounds of soft rubber bullets.
“This equipment is necessary because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety,” Sheriff Carlos Bolanos said.
Supervisor Warren Slocum, a Vietnam war veteran and the lone vote against accepting the policy, raised concerns about calling the stock “military equipment” given that the items are not technically affiliated with the military, a concern shared by the department when putting together the presentation, Deputy Chief County Attorney David Silberman said, who is assigned to advise the Sheriff’s Office.
Silberman said the decision was ultimately made to continue to call the equipment military equipment because that’s how the state Legislature has defined the items, regardless of their origins and to do otherwise did not feel fully transparent.
“We chose to use the terminology that the Legislature used but we recognize that that could theoretically cause some concern or confusion for folks who don’t understand what it’s about,” Silberman said.
Recommended for you
Recognizing community concerns around local law enforcement departments owning and using military-grade equipment, Assembly Bill 481 was enacted to boost transparency between agencies and the public and requires that the department hold a community meeting within 30 days of releasing the report.
Allen said the department would host its first forum around this time next year after additional data could be collected including the number of times the equipment was deployed, any potential complaints and the outcome of those complaints.
Board President Don Horsley, echoing a public comment made by community member Elsa Schafer, encouraged Bolanos to hold a public forum this year to better explain the purpose of owning the equipment that he also defended.
“I think it’s naive to think terrorism isn’t a possibility so I think there’s good reason for it and I would recommend that you do have, rather than wait another year, some public forum in the meantime so people can understand,” Horsley said.
The board also approved an amendment to the county’s firearm policy that prohibits guns on county property to allow for the public to surrender their firearms to the Sheriff’s Office during a county-backed buyback event.
In other business, County Executive Officer Mike Callagy presented the board with an update on a report about county staff’s mishandling of surplus protective equipment and committed to implementing a number of recommendations made by the report’s author James Lianides, a former Sequoia Union High School District superintendent, with experience managing large organizations and purchasing practices.
While supervisors again expressed disappointment in the mishandling that led to more than $7 million worth of protective equipment being left out in the rain, most also agreed it was time to move forward from the event while making sure it’s never repeated.
“A horrible mistake was made, there’s no doubt about that but we have owned up to it,” Supervisor Carole Groom said. “We have put new ideas forward so hopefully something like this can not happen again and we’ve been exceptionally transparent about it. … Let us acknowledge that a mistake was made and let us move on.”
As a retired Army officer we tended to train and prepare for the last war we fought rather than the next war. Determining these requirements for the next war was speculation and difficult to gain consensus tactically and what congress would fund. Local policing is on a smaller scale. Bottomline, the requirements need to be identified, the cost of equipping, training and maintaining are major considerations, and transparency with the community are essential to gain consensus.
Actually, it’s closer to $10 million worth of PPE left out in the rain, not the spin-adjusted $7 million the county would like you to believe. Read up on the investigation by Dan Noyes of ABC 7. Unfortunately, Supervisor Groom doesn’t inspire confidence when she says, “… hopefully something like this can not happen again and we’ve been exceptionally transparent about it.” Hopefully? And let’s be honest, you were only transparent (I’d beg to differ about the “exceptionally” part) about it after the aforementioned Dan Noyes reported on it.
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO
personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who
make comments. Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd,
racist or sexually-oriented language. Don't threaten. Threats of harming another
person will not be tolerated. Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone
or anything. Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on
each comment to let us know of abusive posts. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK. Anyone violating these rules will be issued a
warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be
revoked.
Please purchase a Premium Subscription to continue reading.
To continue, please log in, or sign up for a new account.
We offer one free story view per month. If you register for an account, you will get two additional story views. After those three total views, we ask that you support us with a subscription.
A subscription to our digital content is so much more than just access to our valuable content. It means you’re helping to support a local community institution that has, from its very start, supported the betterment of our society. Thank you very much!
(2) comments
As a retired Army officer we tended to train and prepare for the last war we fought rather than the next war. Determining these requirements for the next war was speculation and difficult to gain consensus tactically and what congress would fund. Local policing is on a smaller scale. Bottomline, the requirements need to be identified, the cost of equipping, training and maintaining are major considerations, and transparency with the community are essential to gain consensus.
Actually, it’s closer to $10 million worth of PPE left out in the rain, not the spin-adjusted $7 million the county would like you to believe. Read up on the investigation by Dan Noyes of ABC 7. Unfortunately, Supervisor Groom doesn’t inspire confidence when she says, “… hopefully something like this can not happen again and we’ve been exceptionally transparent about it.” Hopefully? And let’s be honest, you were only transparent (I’d beg to differ about the “exceptionally” part) about it after the aforementioned Dan Noyes reported on it.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In
Keep the discussion civilized. Absolutely NO personal attacks or insults directed toward writers, nor others who make comments.
Keep it clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
Don't threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Anyone violating these rules will be issued a warning. After the warning, comment privileges can be revoked.