6 o'clock.

And if I can get you out early on a hot day.

Or if you're enjoying the air conditioning, I can extend it, whichever you prefer.

So with that, my first order was this is a plagiaris.

And to do it for the justice for you.

Roll call.

We have a quorum.

We have an excused absence from Victor Chesa.

He has a health problem today, but hopefully we'll be able to join us for the first time next meeting.

And Keith informed me that he might be late because he's traveling back from Sacramento.

But we do have a quorum.

So do we have to do actual roll call or is that sufficient?

That's efficient.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have any remote as well?

You can make announcement.

Announcement from Erica.

Good evening, everyone.

Just a quick announcement.

It's my understanding that Chair Bailey sent an email to the board on Friday on March 13th discussing what was going to informing the board of what was going to be on the agenda today.

And there was also a reference to some of the items that would be discussed today.

So that it doesn't become a potential brown act violation.

It references conversations that were had between himself.

Because it references a conversation with another board member, we just want to avoid any potential violations.

So I just want to caution you all not to respond to that email.

And then any discussion that you want to have on those agenda items should be had today during the um during that agenda item.

Okay.

Okay.

Any discussion that you want to have on those topics should happen today during that public agenda title.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I just deleted it.

I don't remember the note.

I'm always like, oh, thanks.

So I'm glad I didn't.

Okay.

Consent calendar is the approval of the minutes from February 18th.

I hope everybody had a chance to look at them.

Is there any uh comments or edits or changes that you saw?

Not for me.

Okay.

Um do I have a motion to accept the minutes then?

I'll make that motion.

Okay.

Second.

Second, okay.

So that's uh member Chang to motion and strode to second.

Uh all those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay, all opposed.

That's unanimous uh five zero.

With one absence and one, well, two absences at the moment.

Uh okay.

Staff reports.

Um I guess Captain Khan is our acting chief today, and as well as a deputy chief as well as whatever else he chooses to be.

Um do you have anything you'd like to report?

Uh absolutely good evening, uh evening uh uh Chair Bailey and uh board members uh as uh Chair really just mentioned.

Uh both chiefs are away at a uh conference uh down south.

It's our um executive commands uh yearly conference that we attend.

Uh but uh luckily for because of some prior uh engagements I was unable to attend.

So uh I'm here.

And uh as far as for the police department uh report out uh a couple of weeks ago uh we held a promotional testing process that was open for internal and external candidates for the position of a police captain.

Um chief uh Averett will be holding command interviews tomorrow, so we're anticipating to make that announcement within the next couple of weeks as we move that candidate maybe that will be promoted uh to a position of a captain.

This position has been vacant for the last four years, and it was under filled by a lieutenant.

Uh I'm happy to announce that uh as of today we're 77% of our capacity in swarm rank.

Uh it has been a very long time since we've reached uh that milestone.

Um as of this week, we are reopening um the position of uh police dispatcher uh back up again.

There's uh a couple of vacancies that we're anticipating.

And for the higher front, we currently have five police officers that are in the field training program.

Five that are currently in the academy.

We just gave a conditional job offer to a recruit that will be starting the academy in June.

And we have about eight folks that are in the pipeline for police recruit.

So we're doing exceptionally well at that front.

And keeping up in the same trend, we are anticipating to hire two lateral police officers this month, hopefully by the end of this month, and then there's three additional lateral police officers that are in the background phase.

So with that said, by mid-year, we're we're anticipating approximately 15 folks that should be coming out for vote for the recruit sign labels.

Thank you.

Let me uh stay for the record that member Gibbs has arrived, so we can leave one absence and catch your breath.

Any um Captain, just a quick question on the um the laterals.

Are they coming from all over or any particular place?

I'm just curious.

Uh there's actually a lateral that is coming from Georgia.

Oh well.

Um, however, she was a um uh Bay area person that is uh going to super commute.

Uh super commute.

So she's going to still stay in Georgia, uh, but during the work we will be uh resigning locally when going back and forth.

So quite quite impressive.

Our reach was uh quite large.

And the uh others are all local Bay Area folks.

Yeah, all right.

Um I had some housekeeping things I hope I hadn't hoped to do with the chief, and maybe I'll just um follow up with your email instead.

Um do you know when she gets back from this conference she's at?

Uh she'll be back tomorrow.

Okay, okay.

Um I can do that as a minute.

Um so again, the next item on the agenda then um is the uh oh actually um yeah the IPA's monthly report as opposed to the main item on the RIPA report.

Um Denise, are you there?

I'm here, Denise is here as well.

Oh, there you guys are okay.

Hopefully, everyone is well.

Um we are going to be starting our new reporting format, and I wonder if we have the ability to put it up on the screen.

Um hopefully everyone has gotten a chance to look at it because I am going to go through it relatively rapidly.

Um as we do that, or before we do that, because it's a new format.

I just want to give some background to it.

What we've tried to do is to meet the needs of the CPRB, as they have indicated, as you have indicated, chair and members, and so we came up with this newly designed report, which is meant to provide a standardized monthly snapshot not only of our oversight activity but of police activity as well.

Um we're available, it compares the current month to the prior month so that uh the board can identify trend trends over uh the two-month period, changes in volume, and areas that may warrant closer review.

It's not just a collection of raw numbers, uh, but is intended to show the movement through the oversight process, including when uses of force pursuits and complaints uh happen, when they are reviewed and sent to the IPA, and when our review is completed.

The RIPA section provides a visual summary of stop data for the month, and the flocks section provides usage information, but I'll also be reporting on the audits that uh that we have done specifically whether or not we have found any issues in that month's report.

So I'm not sure if it's up or if you have it in your packets in front of you.

It's up.

It's up.

Okay.

So let's move to the activity for the current versus the prior reporting period.

Reporting periods are months, right?

So we are now reporting.

This is the January report, and then I'll give you the uh February report.

In terms of incidents, uh January recorded 283 incidents, which were either dispatched or initiated.

That was down significantly by 1,027 from the part of reporting period.

Citations increase slightly from 148 to 156.

Arrests remain unchanged at 108.

Uses of force increased slightly from 7 to 8.

Pursuits remain the same at 5.

Complaints increased slightly from 3 to 4.

There were 252 completed RIPA forms, 4,762 total flock inquiries, which represented 381 unique plate queries.

The overall takeaway from this is that there was lower overall incident activity, stable enforcement activity, slight increase in force and complaints.

Let's move to use of force if we can.

Excuse me.

Is it possible to um enlarge the see the number better?

Let me know when you're good then.

That's correct.

Thank you.

Yeah, we're ready.

So the first column represents an alias that we have assigned to the particular case.

That alias will remain with it for our reporting.

You then have the date occurred, time occurred, and the force category.

The force types included, physical force, taser use, tackle, take that takedown.

Eight force incidents were sent to the IPA during January.

Several of those were December incidents rather than January incidents.

And for this, we can go on to the next slide.

Jeff, can you what does physical force entail?

Same question.

Physical force entails hands-on essentially.

Captain Kahn can perhaps describe it better than I can.

Absolutely.

So physical force could be anything where officers are placing their hands on someone, and if they resist it anyway, that would constitute a force.

If you pull away from an officer and they have to uh grab on to you, that would constitute a physical force.

And it could arise all the way up to uh potentially punching someone.

So striking would be included in that.

Correct.

And what about um pay compliance?

Pay compliance if they're resistant would be a physical force.

So it wouldn't have been a separate description.

Okay.

Thank you.

Kind of follow-up.

What's the difference between physical force and a tackle and a takedown?

So tackle is a tackle.

I'm sorry, go on, Kevin.

You can do it.

They all just sound like physical force to me, but I know there's a difference.

Right.

There's variance again, as I mentioned on the physical force, the tackle would be just as uh we're describing it.

We tackle someone uh and a takedown would be if we let uh took someone to the well, so uh we tripped that and we um did a leg suite uh takedown.

Um that would be a a uh takedown number.

Got it.

So like severity good.

Okay, thank you.

Um so on the next slide.

Well, I don't see the slides there, but sent to the IPA during the current period.

Yeah, um we have eight incidents, again, several were from uh December rather than January.

Uh the receipt time uh range from 13 to 34 days from occurrence, six force reviews.

Let's go to the next one.

Next slide, six force reviews were completed during January.

Completion time on our part range from one to ten days after receipt.

Next slide, please.

There were no ALCA findings.

And again, just for everyone's edification, again, no AUCA findings doesn't mean that there was nothing wrong or that could be improved in the incident.

It means that if there was such a thing, it was corrected in the sergeant or the subsequent review.

And we did not have to agree on a course of action with the department because it was already taken care of.

Here the main takeaway is no pattern of deficiency in the completed reviews.

And the timeliness of transmittal to the IPA remains an issue to watch, and Denise is going to go into that a little bit more.

Let's move on to pursuits.

There were five pursuits in January, the same as the prior month.

Outcomes were primarily officer terminated pursuits.

The remaining two ended through air support termination and stop sticks.

There were next slide, please.

Four pursuit matters which were sent to the IPA during January.

Only one arose from January pursuit, the others were December incidents.

Three pursuit reviews were completed during the month.

That would be on the next slide.

No off the flying day was on the next slide.

Again, with the same caveat.

So volume was steady, no adverse findings and completed review.

Let's move on to complaints.

Complaints increased from three to four.

Of the four, one was external, one was internal, and two were listed as unknown.

The increase is modest and too limited to support any trend analysis.

More importantly, next slide.

No complaints were sent to the IPA during January.

Next slide, therefore, no complaints were reviewed during the current month.

So this section really only reflects intake.

Current month shows the complaint volume, but they have not moved through the system.

Let's move on to RIPA.

The report reflects 252 completed RIPA forms for January.

The largest stop categories were traffic violations with 87 equipment violations.

87 moving violations 69, 41 based on reasonable suspicion, 25 on non-moving traffic, which were registration, and there was probable cause to arrest or surge in 18.

All of these categories are comparatively small.

The main takeaway here, stop activity appears concentrated in traffic related enforcement and investigated detention categories.

By race, in January, black African American individuals were the largest group, followed by Hispanics, then whites, then Asians.

Just an important caution that I think everyone remembers, and that is that disparities do not equal bias.

Certain disparities may be such that it is a pointer to us and the department to look into certain activities.

So no conclusion should be drawn from the race data as such.

Let's go on to the next slide.

The flock data.

The key findings in the audit.

Did not identify any mass surveillance concerns, unauthorized access, federal or out of state access or systemic policy violations.

There are some areas of training that we need to work on with the department, and that mostly is under use of some of the tools in the program, specifically the hot list or alert feature.

Some users uh repeatedly ran manual queries, which could have used that that tool.

There was also a concentration of search volume among the small number of users.

Um and the free form searches and visual searches also uh concentrated in uh a couple of officers or three of off ships too.

Um excuse me, Jeff, does the success successful outcome mean there was an arrest or what recovery?

Yeah, can you take that?

Uh I I have to admit that I haven't tracked down those eight cases yet, and uh maybe the captain has a better idea than I do about that.

Uh it could be either or it could be uh resulting in arrest or flock led us to what we were looking for, like a vehicle that's a stolen vehicle, for example.

Correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

So overall January presented a uh stable picture, incidents down significantly, arrest steady, use of force and complaints with a modest rise, pursuits remain level.

Um we completed reviews and forced pursuit matters with no awkward findings.

Uh the RIPA data provides a useful baseline, um, but nothing more can be clean from just that uh monthly view.

Flock usage was generally compliant, um, and the issues with flock that I described.

Any questions about January beyond those that we've already hit?

Not at this end, uh I don't see any.

Um, and perhaps for the next month, you can just highlight the changes from January as opposed to going by every line because we got to get through the big report later.

Yeah.

Um so again, hopefully, everyone has looked at the data here.

Um the takeaways, the general takeaways uh were that uh the incidents dispatched or initiated were up 530, so 15.5% increase, citations declined uh from 156 to 139, arrests declined slightly from 108 to 104, uses of force declined from eight to four pursuits declined from five to three, uh complaints increased from four to five.

Uh, there were two hundred and nineteen completed RIPA forms, seven thousand two hundred and eighty-five total flock inquiries, of which 655 were unique SLPD plate queries.

Uh the overall takeaway, higher overall activity, slightly lower enforcement activity, lower force and pursuit volume, and substantially higher flock usage.

Okay.

Any questions?

Questions, questions or comments before we move on.

If you have any comments on the new uh format, happy to hear them.

This is a work in progress, and we'd look to improve if we can.

Anybody have a comment?

I like it.

I like the spliced up so many ways.

Yeah.

Evaluate.

A lot more information, a lot more uh accessible um information.

Um I really appreciate personally the conclusion of the timeliness uh data.

Um I understand you have more to say about that later, but I think it's really important to track in general.

It's one of the things that especially when it comes to complaints that makes a big difference in how the public perceives the process.

It's one of the things that especially when it comes to complaints that makes a big difference in how the public perceives the process.

So thank you for that.

I I do have a request where you refer to the number of uh when you when you refer to the flock data, I think it would be helpful to see the number of if you got if you have that information, the number of officers who made the uh the number of users basically um because it's an indication among other things, like you've already suggested of uh where there may be needs to for training, so more officers are able to utilize it.

So if you could add that in the future, I think that would be helpful.

Yeah, I think it was uh 52 in January and 51 uh total officers who use the system, but some in much greater numbers than others.

Well, that's a significant income from July when it was much fewer number of officers, right?

Yeah, okay.

Yes, so that's good news, I think.

Um then Chair uh Denise uh just wants to report on backlog uh for a moment.

Sure.

Yes, um good evening, everybody.

So uh just comparing to what we were reporting, which was the old chart, there was a column on each uh group of incidents that said the pending cases, the number of pending cases.

Those are uh I'm gonna just quickly go through those orally right now, and and there's a we're in the process of getting rid of those.

Let's hope.

So hopefully there's more be something we have to report on an ongoing basis anyway, uh, because you'll the new format gives you the exact number of days.

Right.

So as these go through the system, you you won't it won't matter.

But as of right now, this morning there were uh 40 use supports that were in progress.

Um 12 of those are in the last three months.

So January, February, March, 28 of those were greater than three months old.

So those are the ones that you really need to get to the system.

The department's aware of it, they're working to clear those up.

They need to get to us so we can review them.

Um pursuits, there were 18 in progress.

Again, there was uh 10 that were from the last three months, and there were eight that were over three months old.

Complaints, and there's both command and internal affairs complaints.

There were 21 complaints in progress, eight of those were the last three months, 13 were greater than um three months, and on IAs, which are the more complicated, there were seven in progress, two of those were from the last three months, and five are greater than three months old.

Again, uh Captain Conn and I have talked about this just this morning.

Uh there's been a bunch that were pushed to us today, so hopefully these will be cleared up as we go in the next few months.

Thank you.

Um any comments or questions on that?

Uh ideally we want to keep it under three months.

You know, what's your standard?

I guess what you're hoping for.

I know it varies by how serious and extensive individual investigation might be, but is there a general target you have?

No more than 30 days.

Ideally, okay.

Ideally, yes.

And there are a couple of reasons for that.

The the biggest reason is that to the extent that remediation is necessary, we want to give it as contemporaneously as we possibly can to the incident itself.

Got it.

Um thank you for that.

Uh and I think this is a huge improvement.

I do really appreciate that you're hearing us and trying to incorporate our perceived needs anyway into your reporting.

So thank you.

Um this is the time for the secretary's report.

Uh we have a new Eric tonight.

Uh thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

Yeah.

Uh nothing to report this evening other than uh you sit in the word says as regards he's away on the official city business this week.

I'll be back next meeting.

One thing I'll uh mention that um I don't know uh Eric had shared this with you, but you may recall that we had a question at the when we were going over the work plan at the end of the last meeting, and I kind of brought brought up the issue of uh that we had some hope that there'd be an opportunity for the department to share with us kind of the impacts of budget cuts on the department.

And Jack basically said I need to get back to you on that.

Well, he did get back to me in an email, and he said that that that that's fine, and that we can schedule it for uh probably later in the spring, and so we'll we'll it'll probably be on our June um uh board meeting.

We will actually have an item on that where the department can present that information.

So hopefully that uh is good news.

So with that um it's now time for public comments.

Do we have any public comments?

No public comments received okay.

No, we do have one.

Thanks.

Um good evening.

Uh I had a question about the uh RIP ed data, which was um I know that we have the main categories of stops, reasons for stops were traffic violations, moving violations, and traffic violations, equipment violations, and I was wondering if we can compare that to traffic accident data for the city of San Leander.

So if the city has data on the race of people involved in traffic accidents, so that we can kind of have another point of comparison of like with people involved in accidents and who are being stopped for traffic violations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um thank you for that.

So we're now at the uh the annual RIPA report presentation by the IPA.

Um I hope you had a chance to scan it first.

It's you know fairly long uh document, 50 plus pages.

Um lots of graphs, but um, I know I have some questions, but I'll leave it to you, Jeff, to proceed, and then we'll go from there.

Yeah, again, I'm going to try to summarize this, and like you.

I hope that everybody has had a chance to look at it, and um if there are questions, I'm happy to answer them.

Um, if we can go to slide one, um total stops.

This should be reasonable reasons for stop in numbers 2024 versus 2025, and really we'll be covering this slide through the next uh four slides.

Uh total stops declined uh from 3898 in 2024 to 3469 in 2025.

Traffic related stops remained the largest category in both years, moving violation stops declined, while equipment violation stops increased.

Reasonable suspicion stops also dropped materially.

Uh, the percentage slides, which if you'll go down two, I'm sorry.

Three, and four slides further on the percentage slides suggest broadly similar racial patterns across the years, uh, but those patterns require deeper contextual review rather than quick conclusions, and um as the public comment indicated.

One of the ways to uh measure um as a denominator uh the uh the the ratio between stops and a denominator is to use the traffic accidents or crashes as a denominator broken down by race.

So it may be that uh we will be asked to do that kind of analysis and see uh where we go with that.

There are other uh measures we're working with a number of cities on other denominators and how to look at this data in a way that may provide even a greater pointer or certainly a greater pointer than just the raw data itself.

Let's move on to slide seven through 16 searches and seizures.

Total searches were relatively stable, a thousand thirty in 2024 versus 985 in 2025.

Searches incident to arrest remain the largest category, visible contraband and parole probation uh related searches increased, officer safety and suspected weapons searches decreased, total property seizures declined from 114 to 99, and evidence remained the main basis for seizure vehicle impounds increased.

Total property seizures declined from 114 to 99, and evidence remained the main basis for seizure.

Vehicle impounds increased.

Moving on to contraband or evidence in slides 17 through 21.

In both years, the most common result was that no contraband or evidence was found.

That category declined, but it is still the overwhelmingly dominant category.

Drugs and narcotics or narcotics and alcohol increased somewhat.

Firearms and several other categories declined.

The broad takeaway is that most stops and searches resulting from those stops did not result in the recovery of contraband or evidence.

Let's move on to slides 22 to 26.

The results of the stops.

Verbal warnings increased from 1,258 to 1472.

Citations, custodial arrests without warrant, written warnings, and no action outcomes all declined.

Psychiatric holds and field interview cards also declined.

Broadway 2025 appears to show somewhat less escalated staff stop outcomes.

Let's move on to slides 27 to 31.

The type of property seized.

Total property seized declined from 155 to 117.

Drug related items remained the most prominent.

Several other categories declined, including firearms, ammunition, electronics, and money.

Vehicle seizures increased and stand out as one of the clearer changes in this section year over year.

Let's move on to slides 32 through 36.

The suspicion type.

Total suspicion type stops declined from 843 to 604.

Match suspect description as a category remained the largest category in both years.

Most suspicion categories fell in 2025, some significantly.

Non-force actions likewise declined overall from roughly 6,000 to 5800.

Taken together, these slides suggest a general reduction, excuse me, in enforcement related actions in 2025.

Let's move on to slide 49.

Residents.

Racial distribution patterns remain important to us, but again, one cannot infer bias from these top line disparities.

The correct next step is a deeper review in those categories which present some concern by virtue of the disparities.

Happy to answer any questions that you all may have.

Thank you.

Questions go ahead.

Regarding uh use of force stops, uh when does it get elevated to examining the police camera uh coverage of that?

Or does it have to be rise to a complaint level?

No, it doesn't.

We are reviewing in the department reviews every use of force, the department first that is supervised, a line supervisor level, uh, then a subsequent supervisor level, the case is then passed on for power review.

We review it, and so it it goes through that that pattern, and then we we report on it as we did in the monthly reports.

And the review also always includes the whatever film footage is available.

Yes, yes, thank you.

And again, we do what's called a 360 degree review.

We are not just looking at the incident to determine whether at the moment force was used, it was appropriate or not.

We rather look at the entire incident to determine ultimately uh what if anything could have been done differently to uh achieved possibly achieve a better outcome.

That is our continuous improvement philosophy that we are instilling in the department, and that the department is working hard to promote within its ranks.

Thank you.

Um but no let me try.

Um so um thank you for this uh level of detail.

Um where there are and I these are things that I don't think you necessarily can or should answer, Jeff, but um, some of my questions where there's a significant change from 24 to 25.

It would be important to understand was that just a change in tactics, a change in uh uh policy, change in um just enforcement priorities.

Um but that's what makes the year-to-year you know comparisons helpful.

So um with that in mind, um, I I do think it's interesting that the number of moving violations in 25 decreased while the number of stops for equipment and non-moving violations increased, and you know what it is those uh non-moving violations that are the ones that in the past have been really kind of uh earmarked as being possibly indicators of of uh uh we refer to as pretextual stops.

Um is that a fair characterization here that the that that increase uh in those non-moving violations is uh fair to call that pretextual stops, or is there some other explanation for the change of numbers?

I don't know if Captain Cotton, if you have any thoughts on that, or I'll let uh Jeff answer first, and I can give you some context behind that.

Okay, I appreciate it.

Yeah, it it's hard, Chair, without going into the specific incidents to make the determination as to whether or not they are protectual or not.

Uh to your point, we often look at equipment violations, um, non-moving violations as a proxy for um pretext stops, but there are lots of good reasons that uh those stops can be made in and of themselves.

Captain, did you say had something you wanted to add?

Well, I thought it did, but uh Jeff explained that.

So in essence, what everything that you said is is uh true.

We don't have enough data or information to correlate that non-moving violations are a result of pretextual stops, some maybe, uh, but uh not enough data for us who says so.

It's not a change in direction or and just for everyone's identification again, pretextual stops are perfectly legitimate and uh and legal in the state of California.

Um there has been some movement in some departments across the state uh to require something other than just the mere equipment violation, um, but there is nothing inherently um permissible about a pretextual stop, which is one that is made because there is an observed violation with the uh I guess the the hope, let's say, of finding something more significant than that because of the stop.

I guess my own um thank you.

My own uh comment on that would be you've already indicated that where disparities persist, even though it can't and shouldn't say that necessarily proves bias, but you want to continue to look at those disparities.

I guess I would encourage you to do that in this regard in particular.

So that's my two cents on that.

So I ended up.

Sure, thank you, and thank you for the detailed report.

Uh my question is exactly that.

It's you you've mentioned a few times that um the disparity doesn't necessarily indicate or mean bias.

And so I might also be asking an opinion, but does that kind of diminish the opportunity for training in that area if it if we if you decide if it's decided already that a disparity does not indicate bias.

No, it does not limit the opportunity for bias training for sure.

Uh and the department, as you know, has undertaken uh bias training.

What it limits is the ability to uh to say that uh there is bias that is operating, um, and that takes a deeper dive.

Um we do something that's called a uh a detailed analysis of tour activity, uh data review, um, which takes a period of time, uh usually a couple of days, in which we look at the total activity, right?

Normally we are just looking at pursuits and uses of force and complaints uh qualitatively for that data review, we do a deeper dive on a few days, um, and there we look at traffic stops, including equipment violations, uh, to try to make a determination as to whether or not we observe any uh obvious bias in those uh uh those other incidents, and we're always looking for any indigenous of bias and the qualitative reviews that we do.

There is a lot of work which could be done, um which I mentioned before relative to applying denominators to these uh this data.

One denominator was mentioned, crash data, um a denominator for uses of force is really arrests and summonses, um potential denominator in any event, and then you can compare black African American to white, Hispanic to white, and see if there are still disparate results there.

So there is analysis which can be applied, including qualitative analysis, um which tries to get to the root of the question of whether any bias, whether implicit or explicit is operating in the department.

Okay, um I see another hand.

Um the uh difficulty of trying to sort out the role of bias, if any, in these changing statistics.

One of the things I'll I noticed, for example, is that by race, there was a significant significant increase in the number of moving violations for blacks, but a decline for equipment and non-moving violations.

So there's an example of if we think the non-moving violations are pretextual stops, if anything, this would appear to show that decline when it comes to blacks.

Um at least that's from a layman's reading of the numbers.

Um I don't know if you choose to comment on that or not, but for Captain I've got one more.

Go ahead.

Would it be possible to see somewhere in the report just demographic information for the city broken down by race?

Percentage of the population for the city to some degree.

Yeah.

Yeah, we can uh insert a slide uh for that, but there is a strong caveat that comes with that.

Um, and that is that the demographic population is pretty much universally not thought to be a very good denominator when looking at this kind of death.

Um just curious, yeah.

So yeah, well, I mean, I'd like to follow up on we did talk about this a lot in the previous reports, um, and and including the presentation by the professor who really underscored that you you know when especially in town like ours when you have so much transient traffic, just comparing the raw numbers to our demographics for San Leandro doesn't tell you enough.

But related to Saida's request, and I was gonna ask it anyway, is what you have the slide now on the residence uh information, last slide or next to the last slide.

It would be really helpful if you could break out the the the column that refers to San Leandro residents, break out that by um by race because that could be compared compared to our demographics again.

It may or may not be um able to draw conclusions solely on that, but it would be helpful to see.

Is that kind of get to your it'd be I would I think it would be interesting to see, maybe even helpful.

Okay, thank you.

You got that, Jeff?

Does that sound reasonable?

Yeah, we'll we'll we'll try to do that.

Great.

Um please, yeah, Keith.

For me, when when you say um it doesn't appear to be any biases, how do you draw to that?

How do you come to that conclusion if so you can't argue the other side that it appears to be, I guess.

I I didn't say that it doesn't appear to be biased I said that you can't infer bias from the numbers themselves.

Um can't infer that there is bias, you can't determine that there isn't bias just by these numbers.

Neither one can you make a determination.

Okay, so what parameters or guidelines can be used to determine either bias or non-biased?

Well, again, you're ultimately the ability to determine bias is limited, but there is the ability to develop a stronger pointer relative to potential bias through the use of the denominators, and then comparison of blacks to whites and uh Hispanics to whites.

So for instance, um blacks are uh 10% more likely to have use of force against them than our whites, or 10% less likely to have a use of force against them than our whites.

That would be the type of comparison which could be done based on the application of certain denominators to the data here.

Keith?

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, um let me move on here then.

Um the uh again, some of the differences there has seemed to be a shift in some categories, uh not so much uh changes in how whites show up in the numbers, but between Hispanics and blacks, there's a number uh of slides that seem to show a decrease in the numbers regarding blacks, but an increase with Hispanics.

Not so much changes in how whites show up in the numbers, but between Hispanics and blacks, there's a number of slides that seem to show a decrease in the numbers regarding blacks, but an increase with Hispanics.

That do you have any kind of sense of that, Captain, of what might account for that kind of difference?

I do not.

Okay.

A reduction across the board of use of force.

I think that's and so it's good to see.

Um that's a positive development, and it's good that the data bears that out.

Um again, even though it's overall down, but there is a slight change there too, where it's gone up for Hispanics and down for blacks.

So again, I'm not sure what to make of that, but it's the kind of thing that hopefully you get a chance to do deeper dives with the department over time.

Um other thing that seemed like a good trend to me was fewer patrol car detentions.

Um again, I don't know if that's intentional or just happenstance.

Um the seizures of property, um there's such a high percent of of uh where uh there are very there are not right that there's a search, but there's nothing seized.

Um again for my reading of the literature in the past and whatnot.

One of the things that comes up is to say if if there's you know uh high incidence of searches without results, then that could be an indication of what some might refer to as over policing.

Um I don't know if you have any comment on that, but um, but it's a very high number where nothing is found or nothing is seized, and yet the number of searches is still relatively high.

Any comments again when we look at these in those instances where uh there might be a search with uh with the use of force or a pursuit.

Um the the question that we ask is whether or not the search was a lawful search, right?

If it is a lawful search, then really in my experience you would expect uh the vast majority of searches not to yield any contraband, and that's a good thing, I think.

Um doesn't, I think by itself indicate that there is uh over policing or researcher searches are done for lots of reasons, including officer safety, um that you would expect ostrichers to do um yeah, I was gonna mention that.

I I do understand a lot of searches are for officer safety, um and um I know that's a variable, but thank you for pointing that out as well.

Um just two things that seem to be maybe errors and in the in what you presented one is that if you look at the basis for property seizures in 25.

That slide actually is the slide for the basis for property searches.

I think that's just a mistake.

Okay.

And then the other one that's a little confounding is on the total forced actions in 24, there was listed 4,274, which can't be right, because there's only 136 in 2025.

So I don't know where it's uh it's the it's it's the one where there's a bar chart on the right uh that shows a total, and it's um not the non-forced ones, the uh force actions there.

Um just one second, I'll get to it and try to comment and I think that was it.

The next one.

So the vast majority of those so if you look at 20 is not now.

Look at 24.

Now go up to 24.

One slide up and see the list 4,000 there.

And that can't, if something's wrong, right?

Between page 39 and 40.

Yeah.

40 seems what I would expect, 130 something, but I don't know.

That data there seems to be off.

We don't we know there wasn't force taken in 4,000 incidents.

So that needs to be corrected, I think.

Unless I'm missing something obvious.

I'll have to look at it more closely.

Okay.

Anyway, because then because we've lost our chance to see what changed from 24-25.

But if you can think of that, I appreciate it.

But that's the end of my questions.

Everybody else will be thankful for that, I'm sure.

Um, as you caught it's a lot of data that goes to become that's why they pay me the big bucks, right?

Um so uh we are we done here.

Do we have any final comments on this?

Just one more question that yeah, when you're talking about uh searching for uh I guess taking people's uh stuff in your car, right?

Uh so pretextual stuff does not qualify for probable cause to search the vehicle, not in and of itself, yeah.

So in order to comport with the fourth amendment, there has to be some exception that allows a warrantless search.

Um the most common one is consent, right?

Do you mind if I take a look around your car?

No, go ahead.

Um that's the most common exception.

And then there are officer safety exceptions and uh other exceptions as well.

Search incident to arrest.

Um hopefully that answers your question.

And I commend uh if you want to learn more about searches, that uh search podcast is very good that we distributed.

I mean, I had a it's in our work plan that later in the year we you know, we said we want to do some more training in in the in the course of these meetings, and the the topic you picked was constitutional policing, so we can take a deeper dive on that then.

So look for that in a future agenda, but we'll definitely get to that.

Um okay then um and I'm told that we're supposed to take public comment on presentations, and I failed to do that.

Karina, did you have any comment that you had okay?

Thank you.

Um the next item is the continuation of the discussion we had about the the audit of the uh ALBR flock data um from last meeting.

Um if you recall that the the audit was done on on the just for the month of July, but the IPA followed up with the department, and there were a number of documentation problems that were and training issues that were identified, and I think Captain Conn at the last meeting shared with us.

I think it was you, or maybe it was uh uh deputy chief tourists, assistant chief tour.

Um described that some of the remediation that was done around that and the documentation uh, especially like the listing of case numbers on uh uh was improved.

Um but um were there other things that people had you know, questions on or that they didn't get a chance to raise at the last meeting, um, because we were a little rushed towards the end of that last well.

Let me see.

Oh, I I just have three quick questions and then see if this triggers any synapses.

Um well the uh one was when um Jeff and Denise shared that they thought a much better approach to the kind of trying to do a full annual audit, which to do it on a monthly basis, so what you've seen and the changes and what they're now including in our monthly report.

Um I think that's promising.

Um and um you know we've already already identified uh at least at least one thing that maybe we'd like to see added to that, which is the to track the number of users of the uh flock um and the number of officer users over time.

Um but are there any other changes in the reporting that you would like to see, or does it seem like we're starting to get the information we need?

Yes or no, that'd be good.

I think we're getting the information we can get there.

Yeah, so terrific.

And so thank you again, Jeff, for that.

Um, in terms of flock, I mean, one of the things that uh we know that the community is concerned about the sharing of flock data with in particular with ICE, and there's been no indication uh that that's happened here, uh at least from review review of the records.

Um but you know, I think I shared with you, Jeff, that you know, the chief in Mountain View actually uh turned off the cameras, and he was very candid saying he doesn't trust Flock that what they're doing on the back end of the data is what he's concerned about.

Um Jeff, have you had a chance to follow up with that chief there to see what he's acting on I didn't follow up with the chief, but I did follow up on the the thread, if you will, right?

And uh the data is in fact um belongs to San Leandro, um, but as I suspected, and I think we discussed at one point um the data does reside in the cloud uh in a uh cloud that is controlled by Flock.

Right.

Um that cloud theoretically is subject uh to a search warrant or uh a subpoena um a breach we were told that uh a judicial subpoena as opposed to an administrative subpoena would certainly be required um and that I say we a uh SLPD and the city would be notified if in fact a subpoena for that information uh was served.

So that is the the current state as I understand it of the data itself.

So look to be so if Flock received a federal judicial subpoena for access to all of the data in the cloud, would they be notifying the all of the jurisdictions that are uh clients of FLOC would receive that notice or just or what?

That's no, that's my understanding that any affected jurisdiction would receive uh the notice and just as an aside, uh Flock did at one point have federal customers, um, but those federal customers have been um offloaded if you will.

Okay.

Um got a question.

Yeah, say you know my question is about potential for a data breach, and um I assume that's already been discussed, and I'm curious that you know what if that were to happen.

I understand the subpoena, but what if there's a data breach?

Um typically with the data breach, those who are affected or notified um, and they're you know there would be the data out there some somewhere.

Uh you know, the question is what can that data be used by, especially by non-law enforcement folks, and one can conceive, I'm sure, of some nefarious purposes that are that are out there.

Um I don't think anyone would say that it was impossible that that could happen.

Um we know it happens regularly with uh with other companies that are out there, so it is a concern, presumably Flock has taken the necessary uh prophylactics to make sure that uh it doesn't happen as best they can.

Also of note is the purging of the data from the records, which happens on a 30-day basis for San Leandro data.

And in fact, some of the data that we were going to report on, for instance, the January data, some of it can't be obtained because of the purge.

So when I went to look at January data in March, the January data wasn't there for the most part.

Well, that's a good thing.

Those are the um questions I had that you know.

So do I see another Tim?

The 30 days that you just mentioned, is that the uh reason that when we were talking about three months there versus 30 days as far as the police department getting the information to you, is that part and parcel of that?

No.

No.

Uh the 30 days here is the length of time the data is retained by Flock on behalf of San Leandro, and that period is chosen by Stanley Android.

It could be ramped either way.

Um, but it was decided, I assume, that this was an appropriate balance between keeping the data long enough to ensure that if it was needed, it would be there.

Um, but not keeping it too long so as to um if there were a data breach, that much more data would be uh obtained, or if there were a subpoena, that much more data could be obtained.

Um that's that's the concept there.

Thank you.

The um from you may recall what we initially reviewed the ALPR policy, which seems like Eons ago now, but I think it was a couple years ago.

Um, we learned that some departments were holding on to ALPR data for FPU.

Um FLOC itself, though, is the one that's adopted the three-day standard.

So that applies to all of their clients, uh, as I as I understand it.

So that's their own uh standard.

Okay, thanks, Jeff.

Um let's uh move on from here.

Um just a quick um check in on just to close it.

I think it has a public comment section.

One minute.

Um, on on the ALPR stuff?

It's the no comment.

Thank you for uh keeping me honest.

Um ad hoc committee reports, which I don't think require public comment.

I gotta get one out of three, right?

It does so we've got three um committees, and we have one going on right now with crowd control, we have one going on with pursuits.

Um, and then I want to kind of confirm where we are on the later item here on the community outreach committee because uh we're starting to get into the season again of planning for the uh uh you know our tabling at public events.

So, first of all, on the crowd control um last month, uh just before the last meeting, we had um our committee had uh set a set of questions to the chief um to then decide what our next steps are.

And Captain Car, do you happen to know where that stands?

Uh I do not okay.

So I'll just include that in my follow-up email with with the chief.

And there's kind of a similar question on the pursuits committee.

Um Keith I think is leading um the kind of the balls in your court to share with the committee kind of where you guys are with the IPA on the review of the from Jeff.

Our understanding is there's already been some um proposals to revise your pursuits policy, of course, and at some point that was going to be shared with our committee, and then we they would figure out in what form that would come back to the full board.

So I laugh because uh this was quite labor-intensive.

Uh we did involve our uh police officers union, the IPA and uh the police from command staff.

We were complete, uh and as we're ready to publish to then get to the CPRB, we were informed by Alexibole that uh some of the statutory languages uh had uh changed.

But we're not anticipating that this process is going to be too long.

Is uh working to fix that language and then it'll be back to you guys.

Okay, and again, um I guess what I would encourage is to communicate that to Keith as the leader of that committee, and then we'll know whether that the committee wants to work on that before it comes to us or whether we just agenda it for full board discussion.

But hopefully the committee gets a chance to take a deeper dive and we'd be able to does that captain, does that mean uh a lexical change or just uh a local change?

Yeah, it is a lexical uh change uh related to some law language that's uh been changed uh working to incorporate that.

Thank you.

I'll just and I will just uh editorialize and say that worries me is a bit because LexIPOL tends to be very conservative in their evaluation of some of the legal standards, and so we'll see if that makes it easier or harder for you to make the changes that you think are appropriate.

Um we'll learn more soon, I guess.

Um so with that, um before you go on, yeah.

Yeah, just so I won't have the question later with the can you identify the change that happened when you uh report to us?

Uh I don't have that information now, so normally that's oh yeah, absolutely.

So yeah, we were ready to publish, and then when we did send the information to Lexapol, that's what we're in for with that.

Well, the the language is going to don't jide, so yeah, we're gonna reformat some of the things.

All right, thank you.

Okay, so stay tuned, Keith.

Coming your way.

Um so the next uh action item is elections.

Um I had uh as uh Erica has a formula in communicating with you guys in advance to remind you that elections um were upon us.

Um the terms are for one year, um, and you know, they were last done in March of last year.

Um I did ask if anybody was interested to let me know.

Um haven't received any inquiries so far.

Um so we're really at the point of uh having to um uh see if there's anybody interested in serving as a chair or vice chair who are not already in those roles, um, and if not, um then our our administrative procedures allows you know for uh people essentially to be re-elected um in beyond a year if the cause and if the cause could be that nobody else has a time or is prepared to take on those responsibilities other than cumbers, then that's um that's what it is.

So um do we have any um anybody have any questions or comments about that?

I'm just trying to be really upfront here about what the rules are and what we are um can you explain our term limits again like well it so it's two different things the term limits for office are in administrative procedures, say one year, okay, and then with a majority of the board can uh go beyond the one year for cost.

So um uh that's different than what your term limits are related to your appointment, right?

On the board.

Is that answering your question?

Uh yeah, that was one question, but the term the term limits of the LECAD up on the board.

Well I think our mine and yours expired in 2020 December 2026.

Yeah, the uh so what I um I've gone to the actual ordinance, and what it says um is the if you remember when we were first uh established, we had offset some people had uh terms that ended in uh so we we could we started in October of 22.

Some terms went through the end of 23, and some went through the end of 24.

The adlitors only have one year when we first started.

That's what I mean.

Well, in a couple months, right?

And so, but then after that it says after that, the ordinance says you can serve another four years.

So it technically, if you had an appointer who was willing to extend you beyond your current term limit to get to the four years, that could happen.

So it so um uh like in my case, I'm hoping it happens, but I don't you know I can't say I know that until my appointer says yes, you know, you can continue.

Um the other thing is that is that for all boards of commissions.

If there's a uh a term is up, but there's um uh uh the appointer has not filled the position, a person can stay in until that happens.

So um so a lot of the that in other words really depends on the action by the council members and the mayor.

Um but that's my understanding of the ordinance.

Um whole different question, I hesitate to ask a question because I don't know.

Um what I'll hear is whether in fact our our ordinance is different than all the other uh boards of commissions, and that we in fact have a four-year limit after our first term, and when I look at the uh the handbook, for example, um for boards of commissions, it does not cite a it's for all the boards it says or it says term limits, it says not applicable, and it says that for us too.

So I assume that means that if we're treated like every other board of commission, that if our appointment or you know wanted to continue us in the role and and uh reappoint you to another term, that could happen beyond even if it went beyond four years.

So am I getting any of this wrong?

It's been a while since I've looked at it.

If you guys want some clarification, I don't know what it but I think you're gonna be correct, right?

So what you're saying is if there's a vacancy at the end of the term and there's no wonder if your appointer can um you can continue to serve into that role until there's someone appointed.

Right.

So well, in that sense, you'd be saying it it's as a default if the appointer doesn't change anything, then you just stay in it.

In that case, there's no term limits.

Yeah, I see what you're saying.

That nuanced.

I can look at the code and see if that's what that means.

Um I think it's worth clarifying.

I think it becomes important for us in general, and also we have a chance to clarify that uh through, and maybe we a better time to do that would be uh when we review our administrative procedures, which we added to our work plan for like September.

That's when we can really focus on in that context, and then actually get you know a more formal opinion from you guys if we need, and then have that incorporate any administrative procedures.

And how do you give you though what currently exists not only in the enabling ordinance and administrative but in the general um council and commission handbooks like to provide that in the meantime?

I appreciate it.

But I think I'm on the four by the four years at least because that's actually the language of the ordinance.

Um how you interpret beyond that is is where you guys I need your help.

Um other questions related to elections.

Um yes, just a very minor clarification.

What the ordinance, or excuse me, the code says is at the first regular meeting in January of every year, the board should appoint its chair and vice chair.

I think the board continued it when it came up this January for what happened was to allow the filling of the vacancy.

Um but generally the appointment under the code happens January of every year.

It does say that, and the reason we did it last year in March was because we had vacancies on the board, and so we thought it we would continue it to March.

We did that, and then in January of this year, we actually did post it as an agenda item, right?

And the and the and we but we got honored the one year uh term, and uh you know basically push back the annual elections to March for this year.

No, we would have to make the same kind of technically in January it'll come up again, and we have to decide whether we do what we do for doing the last two years or not.

But we have to agenda elections in January because that's what it applies to all the boards.

Yes, right?

Yes, so um one way of saying, do we have any um nominations for uh I don't know what's the easiest way to handle this?

Public comments on the elections, no yes, but I'm seeing shaking your head.

Yeah, she's not gonna weigh in on this one.

Um I would take them separate, do it one for chair and then do it separate for the vice chair.

All right, so um uh do we have any nominations for chair like should we nominate someone?

You uh I think that's what we're asking nominate um Bob and read him second okay um there is uh we have a uh motion made by Saida and second by Keith.

Motion made by Saida and second by Keith.

Any comments?

I am pleased to continue to serve if that's the will of this party body.

That's my only comment.

In that case, all those in favor.

Should I abstain?

I guess I do, right?

You don't have to.

What the heck?

Okay.

Make a unanimous.

With one absent.

With one absent.

She's not allowed to vote.

She knows that.

She doesn't even need a legal opinion on this one.

So okay, so do we have any nominations for vice chair?

Can I make nominations?

Yes.

I say we nominee Keith Gates.

Do we have a second?

Okay, so Jenny makes the motion and seconded by Saida.

Any comments?

Any speech?

I accept the non-minute.

You haven't been okay.

Okay, and all those in favor.

Aye.

Those opposed, none.

So it's six and zero one.

Um thank you.

Um the last item here before we just make announcements is and the agenda for next meeting is the uh the uh committee outreach.

I just wanted to kind of confirm who's gonna be on that committee because you know we made a point in the last work plan discussion to be prepared to be able to start if we want to, the using the uh farmers market uh as a beginning of our community outreach, and that's they actually start in April.

Um that may be too soon for us, but I just want to make sure we knew who was gonna be uh on the committee.

Now the who is on the committee now, and then we could just reaffirm that's what's gonna be so it's I'm on it, I am on that currently.

Okay, and then Keith and Saida.

So three of you are the are our committee and you're willing to continue in that capacity, terrific.

So I'm gonna leave it to you guys then to start to work on a schedule which events we attend, and you'll keep us posted.

Terrific.

Quick question.

Yes, please.

Um may have missed it, but when we were doing the ad hoc committee reports, um, we didn't discuss the outreach committee uh reporting out on the flyer.

Right.

Did it was that supposed to be later?

No, no.

I mean, if there's news, I mean I last I heard you were waiting for pictures or something.

Um I sent I sent it right before we got here today.

So to I sent it to um I included Eric, uh but I sent it to you and to Jenny, and then because I couldn't put three, um I'm gonna send it to you separately.

I haven't checked my email back yet.

No problem, but it has been sent okay.

If I don't get it, I'll I'll email back.

Yeah, sounds good.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um we're at the uh announcement, so we've got two minutes.

Um let's see.

Um so there would be motion toward the community outreach.

We didn't entertain the motion.

Okay, um I can make that motion.

Go ahead.

Yeah, okay.

Okay, so I'll I'll make the motions.

That's the three people name, which are so it's so I motion Jenny Chang, Keith Gibbs, and Saida on the what is it on the committee on the outreach committee.

I second that.

Okay.

If I can't.

All those in favor?

Aye.

Aye.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um so for the um uh let me just quickly go around fast.

Any closing comments or announcements?

Saida, do you have any?

Besides the one you just did.

Happy International Women's Month, and um thank you, everybody.

Okay, that's it.

Joseph.

Uh thank you everybody for being here today.

And we're almost on time.

Timothy?

Thank the IPA and whoever all was involved for all their work and uh making a better product for us.

Great.

I also want to go to IPA for make you uh DTO report and analysis.

Great.

Same thing, just um I I noticed this the way they're reporting, is a lot easier for everybody to understand.

Great.

I have nothing.

Sunglasses.

So um the uh I think it's my turn if you're finished.

The um I attended the uh one of those NACOL webinars recently that was about kind of what are the impacts of the feds getting kind of out of the uh law enforcement oversight business under Trump and company and kind of how that impacts local.

Um so I did attend it.

It also means for the next three months.

I can uh if anybody's interested in actually viewing that, I've got the link to the recording.

So if you just let me know, I can send that to you.

Or if you're all interested, I could just send it to you all.

Send it to us all the way.

Yes, that'd be great.

I mean it's not it wasn't quite what I was expecting, but some of it you might find interesting.

It certainly gives you a good window on what's not happening at the federal level.

Um just make sure not to pass that information out to other people.

I'm gonna say don't respond.

Yeah, yeah, that'll be small.

Just as it is if you want to use it.

Um then the other thing was um the uh a couple of us attended the uh I know I saw Joseph there and Jenny was I think it was June Barry for the council's retreat on the on the budget clarities.

Yeah, and that was a really important um uh session because among other things that's where we did get a preview, for example, what the impacts of the budget cuts are on all the departments, including the police department.

And I chose to speak uh for myself, not as the board, on one of the things that was listed as a proposed cut uh for fiscal year 28, so it's a couple years out, but uh under the public safety topic, which included I think both police and fire, over 450,000 of uh was being proposed as a cut from the our new uh alternative response unit.

So um, which is a I spoke against that cut, as did a number of the council members.

So just be aware that and we'll hear more, I suspect when we actually agenda uh further discussion of the impacts.

There's also reference to um the department uh having to cut a uh crime annals position.

So like I said, that's just gonna be a preview of kind of what uh when we have a fuller discussion with the chief, we'll learn more.

But that was already out there is things that were yeah, the cat, like I caught the cat.

Well, and then yeah, there was a couple other things that were not proposed as cuts, but were actually came out as kind of fresh and important needs, not the least of which was to replace the current uh CAD system, which is the computer assisted dispatch and the RMS, which is the record management system, that it's very antiquated, it's a big bucks item, and the department's saying this is really critical for us to get this, and it's not budgeted now.

So um, so um just a preview there.

Lastly, then as far as the April agenda items, the one thing I see from my work plan is uh uh Catherine, you're gonna be guys gonna be ready to do the military equipment report.

You would ask us to push it back to April, and so that's what we've got down for tentatively.

Uh yes.

Okay, so we'll we'll be reviewing that the annual review of the military equipment use and acquisition, and we'll continue with our ad hoc committee reporting just to keep abreast of everything.

But I think otherwise we're done.

So this we've adjourned.