Jump to content

Draft:California Assembly Bill 481 (2021)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


California Assembly Bill 481 (AB 481)[1] is a 2021 law in the state of California that mandates transparency, accountability, and community oversight when law enforcement agencies acquire or use military-style equipment."California AB 481 – Bill Text". California Legislative Information. Retrieved July 10, 2025. It was authored by Assemblymember David Chiu and signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on September 30, 2021.

Key Provisions

[edit]

AB 481 requires law enforcement agencies in California to:

Develop and publish a publicly available military equipment use policy.

Gain approval from their governing body (e.g., city council) before acquiring or using qualifying equipment.

Prepare an annual military equipment report.

Hold at least one community engagement meeting per year.

Submit to oversight and possible revocation of equipment use policies.

Definition of Military Equipment

[edit]

Military equipment under AB 481 includes:

Armored vehicles (e.g., BearCats)

Projectile launchers and less-lethal weapons

Breaching tools

Specialized firearms and ammunition

Drones and surveillance equipment

Tactical communication equipment

Robots and remotely operated devices

Long-range acoustic devices (LRADs)

Explosive breaching and distraction devices

Command and control vehicles

Equipment funded by federal programs such as the 1033 Program

Implementation Examples

[edit]

San Diego

[edit]

The San Diego Police Department (SDPD) has released public reports in accordance with AB 481. These include an annual equipment inventory and public presentation detailing equipment use and funding."AB 481 Equipment Report FY 2023" (PDF). City of San Diego. Retrieved July 10, 2025. SDPD’s AB 481 policy also includes restrictions on deployment scenarios and officer training requirements.

San Diego County Sheriff

[edit]

The San Diego County Sheriff’s Department maintains a publicly accessible AB 481 Military Equipment Use Policy online, including updates and annual reports."Military Equipment Use Policy". San Diego County Sheriff’s Department. Retrieved July 10, 2025. Their published inventories detail the number, funding source, and purpose for each category of equipment.

Los Angeles

[edit]

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department each submitted detailed AB 481 compliance documents outlining their use of armored vehicles, surveillance systems, and specialized weaponry. LAPD’s reports sparked public debate over the use of drones and crowd-control devices during protests.

San Francisco

[edit]

San Francisco adopted stricter rules than those required under AB 481, including an outright ban on certain equipment categories such as kinetic impact projectiles. The city’s oversight board imposed additional approval layers for deployments involving armored vehicles and surveillance gear.

Berkeley

[edit]

Berkeley passed a companion ordinance that further limited the acquisition of military equipment, requiring a supermajority vote of the city council for any new purchases and mandating a more robust public feedback mechanism than AB 481 alone.

Sacramento

[edit]

The Sacramento Police Department published a comprehensive AB 481 equipment inventory with financial details and deployment logs. Community forums were held to gather public input and address concerns about specific equipment types like sniper rifles and battering rams.

State Guidance

[edit]

In 2024, the California Department of Justice issued Bulletin 2024-DLE-13, providing statewide guidance on AB 481 implementation and agency compliance."2024-DLE-13 Bulletin – Military Equipment Use Reporting" (PDF). California Department of Justice. Retrieved July 10, 2025. The DOJ’s bulletin offered definitions, sample policy templates, and compliance deadlines.

Reception

[edit]

AB 481 received support from civil rights organizations, including the ACLU of California, for increasing police transparency and civilian oversight. Critics, particularly from law enforcement associations, argued that the law burdens agencies with excessive red tape and potentially endangers public safety by delaying access to vital tools. Several cities, including San Francisco and Berkeley, used the legislation as a baseline to implement stricter local ordinances.

Impact

[edit]

Since the law’s passage, over 500 California law enforcement agencies have filed use policies and annual reports. The public availability of equipment data has led to community-led campaigns questioning the necessity and proportionality of certain acquisitions. Academic institutions have also begun tracking and comparing AB 481 compliance data across jurisdictions.

See also

[edit]

California State Legislature

San Diego Police Department

Lenco BearCat

Police accountability in the United States

Use of force by law enforcement in the United States

ACLU

Law enforcement oversight

References

[edit]
  1. ^ "California Assembly Bill No. 481". leginfo.legislature.ca.gov. Archived from the original on 2025-06-10. Retrieved 2025-07-10.
  • "AB 481 in the News". American Friends Service Committee. 26 September 2024. Retrieved July 10, 2025.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:California_Assembly_Bill_481_(2021)&oldid=1300335419"