Community Police Review Board Meeting - San Leandro - October 26, 2026

The San Leandro Community Police Review Board (CPRB) met to receive Police Department and Independent Police Auditor reports, take public comment, review Brown Act emergency/urgency agenda procedures, receive ad hoc committee updates, and authorize the Chair as voting delegate to the NACOLE conference business meeting. Roll call showed all members present except Jenny Chang (excused). The Chair noted that members whose terms end this year must reapply; the clerk sent prefilled applications around October 2.

Note: The agenda version provided was dated Wednesday, October 21, 2026, at 7:00 PM; per instruction, this summary uses the supplied meeting date of October 26, 2026 (2026-10-26 15:00:00+00:00).

Consent Calendar

• Approved the September 16, 2026, meeting minutes by a 6-0-1 vote (motion by Keith, second by Joseph; one excused absence).

Police Department Report

• SLPD reported roughly 24 vacancies, including a sergeant vacancy from a retirement earlier in October and an anticipated retirement in November. Lateral officers are being hired to shorten training timelines.
• The records division is fully staffed, though some records clerks are moving to other positions within the department.
• Pursuit and use-of-force policies were provided to the relevant committees. The department plans to go to the City Council in November to release Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund grant money for frontline equipment, training, software, and technology.
• The CAD/RMS replacement project is still in the request-for-proposals phase, with an application deadline of October 30; a consultant contract was extended to help evaluate proposals.
• A 911-system data glitch made the reported citation count incomplete; the 177-citation figure was preliminary.

Independent Police Auditor's Report

• IPA staff presented a redesigned monthly report with charts and narrative. Uses of force, pursuits, and complaints were mostly at the lower end of the range, except for one less-lethal projectile deployment.
• Average time for SLPD to refer cases to the IPA was 21 days. There were no AUCAs for pursuits, so no joint course-of-action agreements were needed; supervisors handled learning moments.
• Five complaints reached the IPA after SLPD's internal review. Two were from 2025 and took over 300 days to reach the IPA. One 345-day case had been reclassified as an inquiry; one 343-day case was delayed by a system entry error. Training for civilian supervisors is being arranged.
• Stop data showed Black individuals were 71% of non-moving violation stops (17 of 24), compared to 32% of all stops; most of those stops were at night and ended in a warning or no action. This pattern stood out for a second consecutive month. A board member noted the prior-month figure was 44.9%.
• RIPA forms completed during the month were 207, corresponding to 207 stops; however, an audit found a significant number of missing RIPA forms. SLPD said it is working on fixes and additional measures. The IPA's DATA audit is expected to be completed within one to two weeks.
• Flock searches by SLPD fell 15%, and no searches were run for a federal agency.
• The IPA and board discussed Flock/ALPR audits: the IPA is doing monthly independent audits in addition to Flock's process. SLPD reported zero instances of misread or unconfirmed license plates leading to stops. Board members asked for bad outcomes to be tracked and for audit coverage of Axon/patrol-car ALPR data to be clarified.

Board Secretary's Report

• The Board Secretary's report was brief; no items were highlighted.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Mike Castle Cowley raised concerns about Flock/ALPR oversight. He said there are no mandated Flock audits, and Flock's audit assistance tool is not a true audit. He recommended audits check access by former or suspended employees, two-factor authentication, government-issued email addresses, data retention settings, camera changes, data-sharing agreements, unusual logins, password rotation, and agencies sharing ALPR data. He also said the report should include a bad outcomes section, not only good outcomes, and should not rely solely on police-generated reports. He asked for a breakdown of the 10 successful investigations/vehicle assists, hot-list hits, and clarification that searches for a federal agency mean on behalf of a federal agency.
• A board member echoed concerns about unauthorized ALPR access, citing a Washington Post article published the same day.

Discussion Items

Brown Act Emergency/Urgency Agenda Procedures

• City staff presented an overview of the Ralph M. Brown Act rules for discussing or acting on items not on the posted agenda. The general rule is that both discussion and action are prohibited without posted notice.
• The three exceptions are: a statutory emergency, an urgency (subsequent need) arising after the agenda was posted, and a continuance.
• Emergencies require a majority finding and are limited to defined crises involving public health/safety, such as work stoppages or disasters. Urgency items require a two-thirds finding that immediate action is needed and cannot wait for the next regular meeting. Matters of compelling community interest alone do not meet the standard.
• The agenda is posted at least 72 hours before the meeting, usually on Thursday for the Wednesday CPRB meeting. Examples included past Flock and military-equipment reviews where timing required urgency findings.
• Staff cautioned that email polling of board members to add agenda items, even with yes/no responses, could risk a Brown Act violation because a majority of the board would be discussing city business outside an agendized meeting. The administrative procedures review was suggested as the place to set clearer rules.

Ad Hoc Committee Updates

• The Flock subcommittee has met twice; topics include Axon/patrol-car ALPR data retention, access, and auditing, and possible consultation with the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
• The administrative procedures committee has not yet met.
• The use-of-force/pursuit policy review is nearly complete; most previously agreed changes were incorporated into the latest version, with a short list of remaining items.
• The dormant crowd-control committee's earlier questions led to some department changes, including increased training frequency.

NACOLE Conference Voting Delegate

• The board considered authorizing the Chair to represent the CPRB as a voting delegate at the 2026 Annual National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement (NACOLE) conference business meeting, including bylaw changes, committee assignments, and board member elections.

Board Reports and Peregrine Contract Announcement

• The Chair shared a statement that the San Leandro City Council, on October 5, approved a five-year contract of up to $705,000 with Peregrine Technologies for an AI-powered data integration platform for the Police Department. The Chair said the vote was a narrow majority, was not referred to the CPRB, was a no-bid contract, and raised privacy, civil-liberties, mass-surveillance, data-sharing, and security concerns. Three council members voted to pause for more community input.
• The City Attorney reportedly said the CPRB does not have jurisdiction over the contract itself but does have jurisdiction over related policies. The Chair argued the Council had discretion to refer the matter to the CPRB, as had been done previously for Flock and dash-camera policies.
• The board agreed to place a Peregrine presentation/review on the next meeting agenda; the department agreed to provide information or present.

Key Outcomes

• Approved the September 16, 2026, minutes 6-0-1.
• Authorized the Chair to serve as the CPRB voting delegate at the 2026 NACOLE conference business meeting; passed 6-0-1.
• Directed follow-up reports on missing RIPA forms, the DATA audit, and RIPA stop-data trends at the next meeting.
• Asked for future reporting on officer-level complaint/use-of-force patterns (without names), likely in the annual report, and for bad outcomes related to Flock to be reported monthly.
• Asked SLPD to clarify whether Axon/patrol-car ALPR data is included in audits.
• Agreed to set the next meeting agenda to include a Peregrine Technologies presentation/review, the IPA annual report, and committee updates; the IPA annual report was expected to be available in time.
• Staff advised that any future procedure for adding late agenda items should be developed through the administrative procedures review rather than email polling.