13-04-2025
Police military equipment requires public scrutiny. Fresno fails transparency test
Fresno residents who ignore or sidestep the law risk being placed under arrest.
But what happens when laws that govern police are ignored or sidestepped by city leaders? Not a thing. They simply adjourn for lunch.
Over the last few months, dozens of cities, counties and even universities throughout California held community meetings required by a three-year-old state law that provides public oversight over the use of military equipment by local law enforcement agencies.
Los Angeles, San Francisco, San José, San Diego, Sacramento, Burbank, Santa Clara, Tustin, Salinas, Orange County, Alameda County, UC Santa Cruz, UC Irvine and my leafy hometown of Los Altos all turned up in a simple Google search.
Opinion
Even Huntington Beach, California's least likely city to comply with state laws.
Noticeably absent from the list of law-abiders: Fresno.
Born out of local law enforcement agencies rolling up in armored vehicles and riot gear in response to largely peaceful protests during the summer of 2020, AB 481 mandates police and sheriff's departments gain prior approval before purchasing specified types of 'military equipment' and compile an annual report of their existing inventories that describes every item and their authorized uses.
Those reports must be made publicly available and within 30 days accompanied by 'at least one well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting' to provide residents with an open forum for questions about its contents as well as the agency's funding, acquisition or use of military equipment.
The idea isn't to stifle local law enforcement. It's to ensure transparency, which creates increased trust.
In Fresno, the public is getting the short end of the baton. The Fresno Police Department's annual military equipment inventory and use report can be found online – at least by those who can successfully navigate the city's website – but no community engagement forums have taken place since AB 481 went into effect.
A handful of Fresno residents attended Thursday's council meeting and submitted public comments to remind city leaders of their responsibility. They were summarily ignored.
The city council's approval of its police department's military equipment survey and use policy was contained in the consent calendar portion of the meeting agenda. Had the item not been pulled by Councilmember Miguel Arias, who posed a few rudimentary questions to Chief Mindy Casto, there would've been zero discussion of the subject aside from what was aired during public comment.
This meager discourse nowhere near clears the bar of a 'well-publicized and conveniently located community engagement meeting' mandated by AB 481 – regardless of any specious claim or legal interpretation made by City Manager Georgeanne White and City Attorney Andrew Janz. What's more, both know better.
In response to public comment, White strongly asserted (and sounded overly defensive) that the city has a responsibility not to send police officers into a situation where they are outgunned and in undue danger. I agree, except that's not really the point.
Regardless of how one feels about Fresno police spending $435,000 on a new armored vehicle or having 517 AR-15 assault rifles and 158 canisters of tear gas at their disposal, the law is plain. And in California's fifth-largest city, plainly ignored.
Trust between law enforcement agencies and the communities they serve requires openness and effort by both parties. Fitting that Fresno City Hall is located on a one-way street.
