Every year for the last several years, every government entity with a police force has been required to approve a list of military equipment. BART Police, Alameda County Sheriffs and local police departments all have to go through this process intended to increase transparency and accountability in policing agencies throughout California.
But having seen it come up in political attack advertisements recently, it seemed like a good time to dig into AB 481: What it is, why it’s necessary and what you can do with the information.
What Is AB 481?
Assembly Bill 481 “Law enforcement and state agencies: military equipment: funding, acquisition, and use” was authored by Assemblymember David Chiu from San Francisco and approved in 2021. Its main concern is how law enforcement agencies get their supplies. According to the Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law of 1945, any local agency can acquire surplus federal property without any kind of bidding process, including surplus military arms and ammunition.
AB 481 requires that, for military equipment—which is defined in the bill—police departments have to get acquisitions approved by their governing body at a public meeting. The police department also needs to develop a use policy that is approved by the governing body and post it on their website. Every year, the governing body reviews the policy and makes any changes they feel necessary.
Very basically, it makes the acquisition of military equipment a public process.
Why Do We Need This?
It may not show up in every community, but in recent years, police have gotten increasingly militarized. Officers in Hayward regularly carry carbine rifles, the same class of gun as AR-15s, in their patrol cars and on their motorcycles. Locally, you may remember Operation Urban Shield, a large-scale SWAT training exercise. This wasn’t an accident.
The Federal Surplus Property Acquisition Law was originally intended to offload unneeded supplies after WWII like property, aircraft, electronics, and consumer goods. Police started getting militarized in the 1960s with the advent of SWAT units in Los Angeles, a model many other large cities emulated.
Then in 1981, the National Defense Authorization Act allowed the Secretary of Defense to provide surplus military equipment to local law enforcement to fight the war on drugs. But violent crime decreased in the 1990s, so it fell by the wayside until 9/11 after which it went into overdrive. Congress started encouraging military equipment in police agencies for counterterrorism purposes, leading to this quote from The Atlantic in November 2011:
“Police departments have employed their newly acquired military weaponry not only to combat terrorism but also for everyday patrolling… In recent years, police departments both large and small have acquired bazookas, machine guns, and even armored vehicles (mini-tanks) for use in domestic police work.”
Police acquisition of military equipment happened with the same oversight as purchasing a ream of copy paper. And frequently, due to the low cost of surplus equipment, without any real reason beyond that they could. Some research suggests it has changed how police behave, moving away from civilian law enforcement and toward seeing themselves as more of a military unit.
What Can You Do?
There’s a good chance your local police aren’t buying bazookas and mini-tanks, but you never actually know until you look. Every local government is required, by state law, to hold two AB 481 hearings before the end of June. They’re supposed to be public and noticed, but the final approval will be at a regular city council meeting, so keep an eye out—Hayward’s is on June 16.
The reports are required to include how often the equipment was used, how much it cost—including training, and what they’re planning to purchase in the coming year, if anything. If you notice an expensive piece of equipment isn’t being used, the money may be better used somewhere else.
For example, Hayward Police Department currently owns 113 carbine rifles, and replacements this year cost over $36,000. However, according to HPD’s past reports, they’ve only actually been used twice in the last four years—and, perhaps coincidentally, both uses were the same year two officers killed an unhoused man for carrying a BB gun.
HPD police chiefs have argued that they’re available just in case a suspect is wearing full body armor. But one could also argue that the rifles aren’t worth keeping and that money could be better spent on other city services.
AB 481 allows residents to know what their money is being spent on. This way, you can have a say in whether the money should be spent on rifles for police or books for the library.
