San Diego Police ask council to certify continued use of equipment under AB 481; council approves 7–2

San Diego — The San Diego Police Department asked the City Council on July 6 to certify the department’s continued use of equipment listed under California Assembly Bill 481, saying that the items are narrowly used, primarily by SWAT teams, for de‑escalation, standoff distance and the preservation of life.

A department representative told the council that equipment listed in the AB 481 report accounts for about 0.15% of SDPD’s adopted 2026 equipment budget and that the department only receives surplus gear infrequently (an unmanned robot was returned in March 2020). “The overall purpose of their use is de escalation, standoff distance, safety, and most importantly, the preservation of human life,” the presenter said during a detailed rundown of armored rescue vehicles, unmanned aircraft systems, patrol and SWAT rifles, pepperball launchers, flashbangs, 40‑millimeter launchers, chemical agents and breaching tools.

The presentation included two case examples in which specialized equipment was used in critical incidents, including a hotel barricade and a Claremont incident involving a subject armed with a machete. The department said its primary response teams (PRT) provide 24/7 patrol coverage and can supplement patrol officers on critical incidents; a code‑11 is a full SWAT activation.

Public comment was strongly split. Several residents urged the council not to certify the equipment list, arguing the tools contribute to police militarization, risk harm to bystanders and are disproportionately used against Black and brown residents. One speaker said the city’s SWAT deployments have led to traumatic encounters and voiced concern about surveillance technologies and data auditing. Others, including a privacy‑focused commenter, urged scrutiny of policy language and raised questions after finding ‘‘draft’’ stamped across a 103‑page SDPD procedures document.

Council members questioned the department on training, oversight and when different teams are activated. Councilmember Von Wilpert, who said he had seen drones assist a rescue, moved to approve the staff recommendation; Councilmember Campbell seconded the motion. Several members pressed staff and legal counsel about whether the city met AB 481’s notice requirements for posting use policies 30 days before a public hearing. A deputy city attorney and staff said the department posted the annual report earlier in March and the updated procedure on May 30 and that their interpretation of the statute meant the required 30 days applied to the formal public hearing, which in this case was the council hearing.

After discussion, the council approved certification 7–2, with Councilmember Ilo Rivera and Councilmember Foster voting no. The SDPD representative said the department will continue debriefs, monthly mandatory SWAT training and annual requalifications for specialty equipment.