title
Adopt an uncodified ordinance pursuant to Assembly Bill 481 approving a military equipment policy for the Solano County District Attorney’s Office
body
Published Notice Required? Yes ____ No _X _
Public Hearing Required? Yes ____ No _X _
DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION:
The District Attorney’s Office recommends that the Board of Supervisors adopt an uncodified ordinance pursuant to Assembly Bill 481 approving a military equipment policy for the Solano County District Attorney’s Office.
SUMMARY:
On February 27, 2024, at the request of the District Attorney’s Office, the Board introduced an uncodified ordinance pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 481 approving a military equipment policy for the Solano County District Attorney’s Office. AB 481 was signed by Governor Newsom on September 20, 2021 and requires that law enforcement agencies bring to their respective local agency governing boards a military equipment policy in the form of an ordinance.
There is some indication that AB 481 was intended to apply only to equipment actually used by the military. The District Attorney’s Office has no such equipment. However, some agencies have interpreted the law more broadly to include certain general types of equipment that fall within the categories listed in AB 481, but that are not actually purchased from military sources. In the interest of transparency, the District Attorney’s Office has created a policy and is bringing it to the Board of Supervisors for approval.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Board action will not impact the County General Fund. The costs associated with preparing the agenda item are nominal and absorbed by the District Attorney’s FY2023/24 Working Budget.
DISCUSSION:
The District Attorney’s Office has created a draft policy compliant with AB 481, which will ultimately be found within the Solano County District Attorney’s Office Policy Manual as Policy 706-Military Equipment (“Policy 706”). See Attachment A. It has been published on the District Attorney’s Office’s website since January 26, 2024.
In adopting the Ordinance, the Board is asked to find the following:
(A) That the military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of deputy and civilian safety; and
(B) That the proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties; and
(C) That if purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of deputy and civilian safety; and
(D) That prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.
Without this equipment and tools, DA Investigators may be forced to put themselves at greater risk of harm in evaluating and diffusing hostile situations involving armed individuals. Moreover, without these tools, DA Investigators may be required to use a more lethal tool to end a dangerous confrontation. Lastly, without these tools the DA Investigators would be much less effective at locating and rescuing civilians in remote locations. Altogether, the equipment and tools subject to AB 481 are necessary to best ensure the safety of DA Investigators and civilians alike.
The District Attorney’s Office has made it a priority to ensure DA Investigators that would potentially use the equipment and tools subject to AB 481 were properly trained and possessed the skill, competence, and character to utilize such equipment and tools. It is important to recognize that the District Attorney’s Office understands the serious responsibility imbued upon its members by the State of California. When exercising the use of force, agency personnel shall employ force judiciously while valuing human rights and dignity, as well as respecting the sanctity of every human life. As such, the District Attorney’s Office promotes conflict resolution through de-escalation. The District Attorney’s Office policy incorporates training to exhaust reasonable resources and consider options to diminish the quantum of force used during tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving incidents. Such assurances will continue to be a priority in the District Attorney’s Office. The proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.
As with all purchases, the District Attorney’s Office will ensure that any future equipment or tools subject to AB 481 is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
Prior to the creation of this policy, use of equipment and tools subject to AB 481 by the Solano County District Attorney’s Office was regulated by individual internal policies. Staff members must be trained on the equipment before using it. The District Attorney’s Office use of force policy requires staff members to exercise any use of force judiciously and with respect for human rights, dignity, and life. A DA Investigator may only use a level of force that they reasonably believe is proportional to the seriousness of the suspected offense or the reasonably perceived level of actual or threatened resistance. Furthermore, it is the policy of the District Attorney’s Office not to unreasonably interfere with, harass, intimidate, or discriminate against persons engaged in the lawful exercise of their rights. Further, all use of force incidents are documented and reviewed to ensure compliance with agency policy and the law and, in the event any use was deemed outside of policy, corrective action is taken through retraining and/or discipline.
The type of “military equipment” owned and maintained by the Solano County District Attorney’s Office has been consistent for the last decade and there are no plans to delineate from prior equipment acquisition.
ALTERNATIVES:
The Board may choose not to adopt the proposed ordinance; however, this alternative is not recommended as the adoption of the ordinance is a requirement of AB 481.
OTHER AGENCY INVOLVEMENT:
None.
CAO RECOMMENDATION:
APPROVE DEPARTMENTAL RECOMMENDATION