HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/16/2020 Item Amendment A, Price
Clerk, Intern
From:dona hare price <dhareprice@gmail.com>
Sent:Tuesday, June 16, 2020 1:08 PM
To:E-mail Council Website; Harmon, Heidi; Stewart, Erica A; Pease, Andy; Christianson,
Carlyn; Gomez, Aaron
Subject:Chief Cantrell's Memo-Agenda Item A
Dear Mayor and Council,
Chief Cantrell’s June 13 memo gives the false impression that she and SLOPD are listening to Black voices and are
responsive to their needs. The very fact that they rely heavily on Lexipol policies, however, belies that fact. Lexipol is a
private, for-profit company that sells canned, boilerplate policies to public safety agencies across the nation. These
policies were created with the specific aim of shielding law enforcement from liability or accountability. Several of those
policies are demonstrably non-compliant with state and federal law, and even though many California law enforcement
agencies contract with Lexipol, the City’s excessive and uncritical reliance on Lexipol policies puts it at considerable legal
risk of liability. For example, see the attached letters to Lexipol from the City of Santa Ana and ACLU.
Chief Cantrell cites these Lexipol policies extensively in her June 13 memorandum, particularly with regard to AB 392
and SB 230; this should be of considerable concern to the Council. After the California Legislature passed AB 392, Lexipol
released an unlawful use of force policy which they encouraged many local law enforcement agencies to purchase and
adopt. SLOPD is one of the agencies that has adopted this illegal use of force policy.
Lexipol disregards the very core of AB 392: the necessary standard for police use of deadly force. The necessary standard
is the new and stricter legal standard that determines officers can use deadly force only when necessary to defend
against an imminent threat of harm to themselves or others. Lexipol use of force policies omit the word “necessary,”
ignore the plain meaning of AB 392, and disregard its legislative history.
Ominously, Lexipol’s subscription terms and conditions specify that the company is not liable for its own policies, and it
will not indemnify customers, which lays all the legal risk in the lap of the City and leaves us responsible for legal costs if
the materials are challenged in court, especially if there were an unfortunate incident in which those policies play a role.
Again, the Council should have considerable concern over the uncritical use of Lexipol policies. I urge you to discontinue
use of Lexipol’s materials and immediately revise the cited Use of Force policy to be compliant with AB 392 and other
law.
In addition to the unjustified reliance on Lexipol policies, Chief Cantrell’s memo does not answer some fundamentally
critical questions:
Who issued the order to unleash chemical weapons on unarmed civilians who were peacefully exercising
their First Amendment rights?
Why weren’t the de-escalation tactics touted in the Chief’s memo employed on June 4.
SLOPD has not agreed to ban the use of chemical weapons in the future. Why won’t the City be explicit
about forbidding us of such weaponry?
It’s outrageous that officers should be permitted to shoot at moving vehicles under any circumstances. Why
won’t the City ban this practice?
The memo repeatedly cites the training requirements of SB 230 but does not state whether those
requirements have been met. SLOPD should provide the data documenting who received training and when,
rather than just citing unverifiable statistics.
Thank you.
1
Dona Hare Price
San Luis Obispo, CA
2