By Scott Alonso, Public Information Officer, Contra Costa District Attorney

Martinez, Calif. — Today, Wednesday, June 17, 2020, the Contra Costa County District Attorney’s Office filed a criminal complaint of 34 felonies against defendant Joseph Canciamilla of Pittsburg. Canciamilla is the former Contra Costa County Clerk-Recorder and a former county supervisor and assemblymember. He also created a campaign account for Contra Costa County Superior Court Judge. Canciamilla is also a licensed member of the California State Bar. Canciamilla’s first court appearance will be on July 27 at 8:30 a.m. in Department 31.

Canciamilla is accused of 30 felony counts of perjury for his alleged misstatements on 30 separate campaign disclosure statements (Form 460s). Canciamilla signed these campaign finance statements under the penalty of perjury. The additional four felony counts relate to personal grand theft of campaign funds for his personal use, totaling $261,800.68. The allegations span conduct from 2010 to 2016.

The personal expenditures made by Canciamilla’s campaign committees for the defendant’s own use were for various purposes, such as:

• Personal vacation to Asia
• Restaurants
• Airfare via Southwest Airlines and American Airlines
• Repayment of a Personal Loan
• Transfers from his Campaign Bank Accounts to his Personal Accounts

All of these campaign statements started initially in 2010 with Canciamilla not reporting investment gains in a campaign bank account. While this practice is permissible, using the proceeds of any stock gains for personal use is prohibited. Canciamilla concealed from his Form 460s the gains and losses associated with this investment account. Ultimately, Canciamilla spent more on personal expenses than the unreported investment gains. He therefore had to then transfer personal funds into this campaign bank account to make up the difference.

“In total, the false statements signed by Canciamilla omitted critical information from the campaign finance disclosures. The information left off these forms left the public in the dark about how a candidate and then county-wide elected official spent campaign funds. Given the recent history of misconduct by various elected officials in Contra Costa County, Canciamilla’s behavior is troubling and he must be held accountable,” stated Contra Costa County District Attorney Diana Becton.

The DA’s Office was notified of possible criminal activity associated with Canciamilla’s campaign accounts in early 2017 by the Franchise Tax Board. The criminal investigation by the DA’s Office included hundreds of hours examining seven different bank accounts held by the defendant. The two primary financial institutions Canciamilla used were Contra Costa Federal Credit Union and Charles Schwab.

Ultimately, Canciamilla was fined $150,000 by the California Fair Political Practices Commission in a civil stipulation for the multiple errors in his campaign finance statements, which concealed the personal use of campaign funds for his own benefit.

The statements signed by Canciamilla included various campaign accounts, such as his campaign account for judge (“Friends of Joe Canciamilla for Judge 2012” and campaign account for clerk-recorder (“Joe Canciamilla Canciamilla for Contra Costa County Clerk/Recorder”).

See related articles on this matter, here and here.

 

Dear Editor:

Following is the letter I sent to the council.  My goal is to educate the council and have them conclude this ad-hoc commission is not needed.  Feel free to print this letter so the community can be educated also.

Dear Mayor and City Council,

My name is Jesse Zuniga, I moved to Antioch in 1989, from the inner Bay Area.  I served as a police officer for the City of Hayward between 1983 -1994.  In 1994, I lateraled to the City of Tracy where I served as a police officer until I retired in 2002.  I also served as an Antioch Police Crime Prevention Commissioner for two terms.  Since moving to Antioch, I have worked in partnership with our police department and city government to maintain a safe and clean community in order to improve the quality of life for our residents.  I have been a private investigator for nearly 20 years, and I serve as an independent panel investigator for the Peace Officers Research Association of California (PORAC’s) Legal Defense Fund.  My firm provides independent and neutral legal investigations for PORAC’s legal defense fund when police officers are accused of misconduct or criminal behavior.  I travel throughout the state conducting such independent investigations.

I am aware of the “Ad Hoc Police Commission” that has been proposed by council members Lamar Thorpe, Monica Wilson and Thomas Smith, our city attorney.  I would like to provide you a summary of educational and valuable facts to consider before implementing a “police oversight commission.”

In my nearly 20 years of subcontracting as an independent investigator to PORAC’s legal defense fund, I have conducted hundreds of investigations involving first responders in both San Francisco (SF) and Oakland.  Both of these Bay Area cities have independent police oversight commissions.  I can attest to the fact that these oversight commissions are comprised of civilians and attorneys that have little knowledge about police practices.  Oversight police commissions are judging police officers’ tactics, practices, training policies and providing a sense of reform within their police organizations.  These commissions are often implementing policies and procedures that put the safety of first responder at high risk, because these policies conflict with state and federal laws and the California Peace Officers Standards and Training regulations.  Oakland PD was mandated by the Federal Court to implement a variety of reform procedures in the early 2000’s that led to officer deaths, following the infamous Oakland Riders trial and the establishment of new policies by their police oversight commission.

The California Peace Officers Standards and Training (POST), provides exemplary training and guidelines that conform with state and federal standards to keep officers and the community they protect safe.  The POST training standards and guidelines are also supported by State and Federal Law. Police chiefs and sheriffs implement rules, regulations, policies and procedures that conform to the POST training standards and State and Federal standards/laws.  Law enforcement agencies often submit their rules and regulations/policies and procedures to POST for review and approval by the POST commission.  POST also conducts frequent audits and provides oversight to each law enforcement agency;  the POST audit process is very strict.  The strict standards that a police agency must meet are being evaluated by professionals in the law enforcement field to ensure officer safety and the safety of their constituents.

My experience with the SF and Oakland oversight commissions has shown me that civilian oversight commissions often make decisions based on personal bias’ or perceptions instead of reviewing a situation objectively and adhering to the POST standards, state and/or federal law standards.  The personal, emotional and political decisions of oversight commissions have proven to be costly to their cities and detrimental to the safety of their law enforcement personnel.  Commissions make decisions to impose discipline upon officers based on personal feelings or agendas, which often violate the Peace Officer’s Bill of Rights, the California Government Code, the agency’s policies and procedures and state and federal law.  The officers in question have the right to appeal the commission’s decision via an administrative proceeding or a court of law.  The expense of the appeal process is incurred by the city who imposes the discipline.  Frequently, the employee is reinstated by an administrative hearing officer/court judge.  Upon reinstatement, the city must make the employee whole by way of full reimbursement of lost earnings and benefits.  Because the administrative and court process can take years, the costs range from hundreds of thousands of dollars to millions per employee.   In many cases, the commission’s decisions will override the imposed legal disciplinary recommendation by a police chief or sheriff.  We saw this recently in Oakland.  The Oakland commission used a predetermined outcome regarding a police officer’s use of force, which was in conflict with the police chief’s recommendation.  The former Oakland police chief’s decision was based upon the POST standards, state and federal law standards.  The commission’s predetermined disciplinary outcome did not meet the legal standards; the commission attempted to strong arm the former Oakland police chief following the commission’s decision.  The chief’s refusal to violate departmental policy, along with state and federal law led to the unilateral commission decision to terminate the Oakland police chief.  The former chief has filed a lawsuit against the city of Oakland and if the chief is awarded compensation or the city coordinates a settlement agreement, either can prove costly to the city of Oakland.  Antioch’s city attorney Thomas Lloyd Smith was a member of the Oakland commission that terminated the Oakland Chief.  Mr. Lloyd has served on the Oakland oversight commission since October 2017 and his term expires in October 2020.  Mr. Lloyd has first hand knowledge of the adverse affects the Oakland oversight commission has had on the Oakland community and police department.

Poor political decisions by an oversight commission have negative affects on a police organization and will create low morale that will lead to an exodus of police officers.  The recruiting/hiring process and training new officers is costly.  Subsequently, applicants are less likely to seek a job opportunity where the city government and commission do not support their officers’ and community members’ safety.  Cities like Oakland and SF have been struggling for decades to retain qualified officers, therefore, those cities have lowered their hiring standards, which attracts less desirable applicants that cannot meet the strict hiring standards of other agencies.  Antioch has benefitted from the hiring of the experienced and highly qualified officers who have left Oakland, SF and Stockton due to the unsavory political climates created by their oversight commissions.  

A few years back, the Antioch Police Department suffered from poor political decisions.  The results of the poor political decisions led to officers leaving the Antioch Police Department to work for other Bay Area agencies where the officers were valued as professionals.  I have been involved in investigating several administrative police disciplinary matters within the Antioch Police Department.   I also have professional relationships with many current officers, some of which came from other police departments.   Recently, the Antioch Police Department’s morale has improved, community relations have improved significantly, community based policing has been implemented in a successful manner, and accountability within the police department is equal amongst the ranks.  Implementing an oversight police commission can diminish all of these positive gains.

I would like to provide a summary of checks and balances already in place, and to provide some educational facts regarding the 6 points outlined on your ad-hoc commission meeting agenda:

1.  “Prevention of excessive use of force by police officers against members of the public, including banning police from using carotid artery restraints and chokeholds;”  The application of the carotid restraint is a technique that is only used in extreme circumstances where a combative suspect needs to be subdued because the suspect’s active resistance and the use of other techniques and or tools have proven to be completely ineffective.  The carotid restraint is rarely used and has proven to be effective when an officer’s life or community member’s life is at risk.  As with any technique or tool used, there can be negative implications.  Although the risk of death is present when applying the carotid restraint, statistics show that death as a result of the carotid restraint is very minimal and is not as lethal as discharging a firearm.
2.  “Demilitirazation”, elimination of military equipment from the police department.  Police agencies nation wide have had to Implement military style equipment and tactics in order to match the military style weapons and military type body armor criminals posses and often use in mass school shootings, malls and places of worship.  In 1997, TWO bank robbers in North Hollywood armed with AK-47s were responsible for shooting multiple officers and citizens during the botched robbery.  The police officers carrying handguns were outgunned by the robbers.  The Los Angeles SWAT team was deployed and one suspect wearing body armor was shot 28 times before becoming disabled.  The 1997 North Hollywood incident created the nation wide implementation, demand and need of military style weapons and tactics by police in order toprotect law abiding citizens and law enforcement personnel.  It is not reasonable nor responsible to take police departments back to the days of carrying revolvers (which carry six bullets) while criminals are armed with AR-15’s, AK 47’s, or many other assault type weapons that can carry or fire 30, 50 or hundreds of bullets in seconds, or bullets that can pierce a typical police bullet proof vest or concrete walls.  The use of armored vehicles, military style weapons and military type protective gear is necessary to protect the police officers while they risk their lives protecting their communities.  Criminals engaging in violent assaults in a community while using military style weapons must be met with equal or superior tools to neutralize the threat.In 2009, four Oakland police officers were killed by one suspect who was armed with a military style weapon.  One officer was killed during a traffic stop and the other three officers were SWAT team members who were ambushed by the suspect.  Had the Oakland SWAT and the Alameda County SWAT team members not been equipped with the approrpiate military gear there may have been more officers or community members killed by one suspect.  Luckily, Oakland Police and the Alameda County Sheriff’s Department SWAT teams and patrol officers were properly equipped and trained to neutralize such a violent suspect without further loss of life or harm to the Oakland community.   I am confident you would not want Antioch PD to suffer such a loss or be ill prepared to handle such a devastating and dangerous act of terror in our community.
3.  “Required use of conflict de-escalation approaches by all sworn officers when interacting with the public”.  De-escalation tactics are taught and used everyday by police officers.  People must understand that when an officer implements his/her de-esclation tactics there are two critical points that need to occur for the de-escalation tactic to be successful.  First, the suspect has to mentally recognize the de-escalation process and second, the suspect has to agree and engage in the de-escalation process.  If the suspect refuses to recognize or engage in the de-escalation process then the de-escalation process is rendered unsuccessful and useless.  Once the de-escalation tactics are refused by the suspect, the officer must recognize the refusal and immediately implement other tactics to control the situation in order to protect the suspect, the officers or community members.
4.  “Increased accountability, including the process of receipt and review public complaints against the police for excessive use of force, racial and/or ethnic profiling, and other police misconduct”.  California POST and the state and federal laws are already in place to seek accountability that is within the law.  The law already allows for a review of public complaints pertaining to the use of force or other personnel complaints.  This is called a “pitches motion” and it can be filed in court.  There is also a public records request process, however, there are legal standards implanted by the state and federal government that must be met by the police agency prior to releasing the information requested.  There are also legal standards for the reporting of racial and/ethnic profiling that must be met by a police agency.
5.  “Improvement of police officer candidate recruitment, screening, training, and hiring practices including an analysis of policies concerning implicit bias, candidate diversity and candidate background checks; and” .  California POST has strict standards for the police hiring process.  Applicant have to pass a series of physical and medical exams, an intense multi phase psychological exam (which will expose the exact objectives you outlined), a polygraph exam, and an intense background check tho include behaviors that are seen from the time an applicant was a child to adulthood.  The criteria is so strict that most applicants fail the background, psychological exam or the polygraph, which disqualifies the applicant from proceeding with the hiring process.
6.  “Police Department budget appropriations” . The police department manager/chief has checks and balances for the budget process.  The police budget is overseen and approved by the city manager, the city treasurer and ultimately the city council.

It is my hope that after reviewing the summary of information provided, you can agree that there are many substantive and strict legal checks and balances already in place.   If we are to seek equity and accountability, then let’s demand that of everyone, including those who engage in behavior that is detrimental to the safety of our community.  As council members you took an oath to represent all members of our community and your constituents.  Creating a police oversight commission will only increase costs and decrease safety for our police officers and our community.

Thank you for your consideration,

Jesse Zuniga, Jr.

Antioch

 

Law & Justice

Issued on: June 16, 2020

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1.  Purpose.  As Americans, we believe that all persons are created equal and endowed with the inalienable rights to life and liberty.  A fundamental purpose of government is to secure these inalienable rights.  Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement officers place their lives at risk every day to ensure that these rights are preserved.

Law enforcement officers provide the essential protection that all Americans require to raise their families and lead productive lives.  The relationship between our fellow citizens and law enforcement officers is an important element in their ability to provide that protection.  By working directly with their communities, law enforcement officers can help foster a safe environment where we all can prosper.

Unfortunately, there have been instances in which some officers have misused their authority, challenging the trust of the American people, with tragic consequences for individual victims, their communities, and our Nation.  All Americans are entitled to live with the confidence that the law enforcement officers and agencies in their communities will live up to our Nation’s founding ideals and will protect the rights of all persons.  Particularly in African-American communities, we must redouble our efforts as a Nation to swiftly address instances of misconduct.

The Constitution declares in its preamble that one of its primary purposes was to establish Justice.  Generations of Americans have marched, fought, bled, and died to safeguard the promise of our founding document and protect our shared inalienable rights.  Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial leaders must act in furtherance of that legacy.

Sec. 2.  Certification and Credentialing.  (a)  State and local law enforcement agencies must constantly assess and improve their practices and policies to ensure transparent, safe, and accountable delivery of law enforcement services to their communities.  Independent credentialing bodies can accelerate these assessments, enhance citizen confidence in law enforcement practices, and allow for the identification and correction of internal deficiencies before those deficiencies result in injury to the public or to law enforcement officers.

(b)  The Attorney General shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant funding only to those State and local law enforcement agencies that have sought or are in the process of seeking appropriate credentials from a reputable independent credentialing body certified by the Attorney General.

(c)  The Attorney General shall certify independent credentialing bodies that meet standards to be set by the Attorney General.  Reputable, independent credentialing bodies, eligible for certification by the Attorney General, should address certain topics in their reviews, such as policies and training regarding use–of-force and de-escalation techniques; performance management tools, such as early warning systems that help to identify officers who may require intervention; and best practices regarding community engagement.  The Attorney General’s standards for certification shall require independent credentialing bodies to, at a minimum, confirm that:

(i)   the State or local law enforcement agency’s use-of-force policies adhere to all applicable Federal, State, and local laws; and

(ii)  the State or local law enforcement agency’s use-of-force policies prohibit the use of chokeholds — a physical maneuver that restricts an individual’s ability to breathe for the purposes of incapacitation — except in those situations where the use of deadly force is allowed by law.

(d)  The Attorney General shall engage with existing and prospective independent credentialing bodies to encourage them to offer a cost-effective, targeted credentialing process regarding appropriate use-of-force policies that law enforcement agencies of all sizes in urban and rural jurisdictions may access.

Sec. 3.  Information Sharing.  (a)  The Attorney General shall create a database to coordinate the sharing of information between and among Federal, State, local, tribal, and territorial law enforcement agencies concerning instances of excessive use of force related to law enforcement matters, accounting for applicable privacy and due process rights.

(b)  The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall include a mechanism to track, as permissible, terminations or de-certifications of law enforcement officers, criminal convictions of law enforcement officers for on-duty conduct, and civil judgments against law enforcement officers for improper use of force.  The database described in subsection (a) of this section shall account for instances where a law enforcement officer resigns or retires while under active investigation related to the use of force.  The Attorney General shall take appropriate steps to ensure that the information in the database consists only of instances in which law enforcement officers were afforded fair process.

(c)  The Attorney General shall regularly and periodically make available to the public aggregated and anonymized data from the database described in subsection (a) of this section, as consistent with applicable law.

(d)  The Attorney General shall, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, allocate Department of Justice discretionary grant funding only to those law enforcement agencies that submit the information described in subsection (b) of this section.

Sec. 4.  Mental Health, Homelessness, and Addiction.  (a)  Since the mid-twentieth century, America has witnessed a reduction in targeted mental health treatment.  Ineffective policies have left more individuals with mental health needs on our Nation’s streets, which has expanded the responsibilities of law enforcement officers.  As a society, we must take steps to safely and humanely care for those who suffer from mental illness and substance abuse in a manner that addresses such individuals’ needs and the needs of their communities.  It is the policy of the United States to promote the use of appropriate social services as the primary response to individuals who suffer from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction, recognizing that, because law enforcement officers often encounter such individuals suffering from these conditions in the course of their duties, all officers should be properly trained for such encounters.

(b)  The Attorney General shall, in consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services as appropriate, identify and develop opportunities to train law enforcement officers with respect to encounters with individuals suffering from impaired mental health, homelessness, and addiction; to increase the capacity of social workers working directly with law enforcement agencies; and to provide guidance regarding the development and implementation of co-responder programs, which involve social workers or other mental health professionals working alongside law enforcement officers so that they arrive and address situations together.  The Attorney General and the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall prioritize resources, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to support such opportunities.

(c)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall survey community-support models addressing mental health, homelessness, and addiction.  Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall summarize the results of this survey in a report to the President, through the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, which shall include specific recommendations regarding how appropriated funds can be reallocated to support widespread adoption of successful models and recommendations for additional funding, if needed.

(d)  The Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, in coordination with the Attorney General and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, prioritize resources, as appropriate and consistent with applicable law, to implement community-support models as recommended in the report described in subsection (c) of this section.

Sec. 5.  Legislation and Grant Programs.  (a)  The Attorney General, in consultation with the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy and the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, shall develop and propose new legislation to the Congress that could be enacted to enhance the tools and resources available to improve law enforcement practices and build community engagement.

(b)  The legislation described in subsection (a) of this section shall include recommendations to enhance current grant programs to improve law enforcement practices and build community engagement, including through:

(i)    assisting State and local law enforcement agencies with implementing the credentialing process described in section 2 of this order, the reporting described in section 3 of this order, and the co responder and community-support models described in section 4 of this order;

(ii)   training and technical assistance required to adopt and implement improved use–of-force policies and procedures, including scenario-driven de-escalation techniques;

(iii)  retention of high-performing law enforcement officers and recruitment of law enforcement officers who are likely to be high-performing;

(iv)   confidential access to mental health services for law enforcement officers; and

(v)    programs aimed at developing or improving relationships between law enforcement and the communities they serve, including through community outreach and listening sessions, and supporting non profit organizations that focus on improving stressed relationships between law enforcement officers and the communities they serve.

Sec. 6.  General Provisions.  (a)  Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i)   the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii)  the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b)  This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

(c)  This order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity by any party against the United States, its departments, agencies, or entities, its officers, employees, or agents, or any other person.

DONALD J. TRUMP

THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 16, 2020.

 

By Antioch Police Officers Association

The amazing men and women of the Antioch Police Department need the support of our citizens. Council members Lamar Thorpe and Monica Wilson are attacking the great work being done by the Antioch Police Department. The special meeting set for Tuesday is nothing more than two council members searching for power and using this platform to push their agenda and further their political careers. (See related article)

The APOA believes we can always do better, and will always embrace conversation and positive change to strengthen the relationship with our community. The proposed ad hoc committee is going to give politicians power to create policies within the Police department. No Council should have that power. The department head (chief of police) should be the only one making policies for the police department.

The Antioch Police Department has always maintained a high level of transparency, and will continue to do so under SB 1421. Additionally, The Antioch Police Department has some of the strictest hiring standards in the Bay Area, and will continue to maintain that high standard.

Lamar Thorpe wants power and control over the police department, a profession he knows nothing about and a department he should not be creating policy for.

Please send in your comments to the council showing support for the Antioch Police Department and letting the council know there is no need for an ad hoc committee.

Sean Wright- swright@ci.antioch.ca.us
Joy Motts- jmotts@ci.antioch.ca.us
Lamar Thorpe- lthorpe@ci.antioch.ca.us
Lori Ogorchock- logorchock@ci.antioch.ca.us
Monica Wilson- mwilson@ci.antioch.ca.us

Some mail stolen from Brentwood, one car stolen in Pleasant Hill

By Antioch Police Department

You’ve probable read how diligent #APDNightShift is in keeping watch of our city while you sleep — and they did not disappoint last night! Officers found a total of three occupied stolen vehicles and made three separate arrests, including one of particular note:

A little after 2:00 am, an officer spotted a Honda reported stolen from Pleasant Hill in the area of Hillcrest Avenue and East Tregalllas Road. After a stop was made, officers searched the car and found several pieces of mail stolen from our good neighbors over in Brentwood. BrentwoodPD showed up to help-out and took possession of the stolen mail, with the intention of returning it to the victims. The driver was arrested and given free shuttle service (courtesy of an APD chauffeur) to the County Jail, where he was booked on the stolen vehicle plus mail theft charges.

Mail theft continues to be a huge problem across the East Bay. If you haven’t already, please consider using a locking mailbox and signing up for Informed Delivery. Victims of mail theft often have their identity stolen and used to open fraudulent credit accounts (it’s a big headache). Never place outgoing mail in yours, and instead drop it off at the Post Office or a blue Postal Service delivery bin. Informed Delivery is a service from the Post Office that provides daily emails with scanned images of the mail being delivered to your address. You can sign up for this free service by visiting this link: https://informeddelivery.usps.com/…/pages/intro/start.action

#AntiochPD   #BrentwoodPD   #CVC10851

 

Police Crime Prevention Commission Chairman questions need, accuses Thorpe of playing politics

By Allen Payton

The Antioch City Council will hold a special meeting Tuesday night, June 16, 2020 to discuss and consider forming a Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee. It’s being done at the request of Councilman Lamar Thorpe who stated his desire to place the matter on a future council meeting agenda, at the end of this past Tuesday night’s regular council meeting. 

However, Police Crime Prevention Commission Chair Sandra White, in a comment on Thorpe’s personal Facebook page, questioned the need for it.

“Lamar as the Chairman of the Crime Commission in Antioch, why is Council interested in forming a new committee to discuss Police Reform?” she asked. “I was not aware our police department needed to be reformed? Or, is the council using the situation that happened to Mr. Floyd as a way to gain political support; as you all are trying to get re-elected?”

“Yes, I believe it is shameful to use a highly sensitive matter for political purposes,” White continued. “Please get off the wagon! Our police department has done an outstanding job over the years with limited resources. When you talk about police reform most people’s perceptions are police practices and/or policies are not working in the community. It will be a mistake to create that perception of the Antioch Police department.”

“Feel free to follow up with me directly to discuss further,” she concluded.

However, her comment has been deleted. When reached for comment Thorpe wrote in a text about White and her comment, “She is not my friend on FB (Facebook). I delete all comments from people who are not my friends on FB. She’s more than welcome to comment on my public profile.”

Asked if his post was still on his personal page and why not use the Police Crime Prevention Commission instead of forming a council ad hoc committee, Thorpe did not respond.

Earlier this week, while speaking with the Herald about the eight reform recommendations he offered on Monday as part of the national 8 Can’t Wait campaign, and about what Antioch Police Chief T Brooks shared that the department was already implementing five of them and didn’t recommend implementing the other three, Thorpe said, “I want all eight.”

According to the staff report on the single item agenda, the council it is recommended they “Discuss and consider formation of a Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee including whether it shall review existing policies, rules, practices, customs, and general orders of the Antioch Police Department and make recommendations including but not limited to:

A. Prevention of excessive use of force by police officers against members of the public, including banning police from using carotid artery restraints and chokeholds;

B. Elimination of military equipment from the police department (“Demilitarization”);

C. Required use of conflict de-escalation approaches by all sworn officers when interacting with the public;

D. Increased police accountability, including the process for receipt and review of public complaints against the police for excessive use of force, racial and/or ethnic profiling, and other police misconduct;

E. Improvement of police officer candidate recruitment, screening, training and hiring practices including an analysis of policies concerning implicit bias, candidate diversity and candidate background checks; and

F. Police department budget appropriations.

2) Confirm the appointment of two (2) members for the Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee, if the ad hoc committee is desired;

3) Confirm the duration of the Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee, if the ad hoc committee is desired;

4) Adopt the resolution to form the Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee, if the ad hoc committee is desired; and

5) Determine whether to hold study sessions to discuss and consider the findings and recommendations of the Police Reform Ad Hoc Committee and, if so, when to schedule the study sessions.”

The council meeting will begin at 7:00 p.m. and can be viewed on Comcast Cable Channel 24 or via livestream on the city’s website. Use the form on that same page to submit a comment either for general public comments on topics not on the agenda or on the one agenda item, to be read during the meeting. Comments are limited to 350 words.

With total annual budget revenues of $158 million the City of Antioch spends $43 million on police services.

By Allen Payton

This is in response to public comments during the Antioch City Council meeting on Tuesday, June 9, 2020 which included calls for the defunding of the police department claiming it takes up 62% of the city’s budget. In addition, copies of the city’s General Fund pie chart were distributed to participants during a Black Lives Matter protest held in Antioch on Tuesday. Hopefully, this will help educate them so they make policy suggestions in the future based on the facts, not rumor and misinformation.

What all of those people didn’t do was their homework, which could have been accomplished with a simple online search to learn about the actual details in the city’s two-year budget for the 2019-2020 and 2020-21 fiscal years. Please click here to view and see pages vi (10) and vii (11) of the 330-page document that can be found on the Finance Department’s page on the City’s website. (NOTE: This last sentence has been corrected. The previous pages referred to the June 25, 2019 Antioch Council meeting agenda in which the proposed two-year budget was included for council adoption and was 776 pages long).

In the current 2019-20 fiscal year ending on June 30th, the General Fund makes up just 44% of the city’s overall budget. That figure is projected to rise slightly to 44.1% in the next fiscal year beginning July 1st. Of that 62% was spent on police and public safety this year and 62.1% is budgeted in the 2020-21 fiscal year. So, that means only 27.3% to 27.4% of the city’s budget was and will be spent on police services during the current two-year budget cycle.

What the people who spoke during the council meeting also don’t seem to understand, remember or be aware of – most likely because they are young and couldn’t vote when the ballot measures passed or don’t live here – is that the voters of Antioch voted twice to pass a sales tax increase and spend most of the additional revenue on more police and public safety.

As a result, the City of Antioch has been hiring more police since 2013, and just last year, finally fulfilled the promise made in 2013 by the then-mayor and council members of 22 more police officers, immediately. That was when there were 89 sworn officers on the force and Antioch now has 115 sworn officers.

Then, with the passage of Measure W in 2018, increasing the sales tax to one percent, the voters told the council to spend most of the funds to “restore the number of police officers patrolling City streets” and “to increase investment in code enforcement, clean up blight, road repairs, support youth and senior services, and attract new business and jobs to Antioch.” The priorities for use of the Measure W sales tax funds are as follows:

• Continuing to maintain 911 police response and restore the number of police officers patrolling City streets
• Ensuring water quality and safety
• Maintaining Antioch’s quality of life and financial stability
• Cleaning up illegal dumping
• Restoring after-school and summer programs for youth

Going back to the City’s original formation documents in 1872, the City of Antioch was incorporated for the purpose of “police and other matters.” Police services and public safety have always been the number one reason the city government exists and the top budget priority. But, it does not make up more than a majority of the City’s overall budget. It’s closer to one-fourth.

Provides reasons he doesn’t recommend implementing all of them

The following was issued on Tuesday, June 9, 2020 in response to questions from the public and media about eight proposed reforms for the Antioch Police Department, explaining how five of the eight have already been implemented. (See related article)

Message from Chief Tammany Brooks

In the past few days, I have received numerous inquiries from the media and the public regarding a national campaign called 8 Can’t Wait. As such, I wanted to provide some clarifying information so our community can be more informed on the reality of how our current policy compares to the recommendations made by the 8 Can’t Wait campaign. I will also explain why I do not believe at this time it would be prudent to follow all eight of the recommendations.

Three things I want you to consider before I go through each of the 8 Can’t Wait recommendations:

• The entire Antioch Police Department Policy Manual is accessible for anyone to review through our police department website, and has been for about two years.
• The Antioch Police Department uses Lexipol software to continually update our policies. Lexipol is the nation’s leading provider of public safety policy and training solutions for law enforcement. This system ensures that all policies are aligned with State and Federal law and policies are continuously updated as laws change.
• In 2019, California passed two pieces of legislation that are important to this conversation. AB 392 (Weber) set a new legal standard for police officers’ use of deadly force here in California. SB 230 (Caballero) set national precedent by establishing a minimum use of force policy standard for ALL departments.

Now let’s look at each 8 Can’t Wait recommendation, and whether it is currently in use at the Antioch Police Department:

De-Escalation Requirement: Yes

This recommendation, while not directly articulated, is part of the legal standard for all California police departments. SB 230 requires that “officers utilize de-escalation techniques, crisis intervention tactics, and other alternatives to force when feasible.

Use of Force Continuum: No

The use of force continuum is an outdated model that has proved impractical, even dangerous, when applied in real life situations. Instead, our policy focuses on various factors used to determine the reasonableness of force in any situation, as set forth in the training and policy requirements of SB 230.

Restrict Chokeholds and Strangleholds (including carotid restraint): Yes

During my 25 years here at APD, chokeholds and strangleholds have never been authorized uses of force. However, our current policy as seen on our website allows for the use of the carotid restraint. However, Last Friday, Governor Newsom instructed California POST to cease training officers in its use and stated he intended to sign pending legislation that would ban its use throughout the entire state. Because of this, I have already issued a departmental directive, immediately prohibiting the use of the carotid restraint by our officers. This will be formally updated in an upcoming update to our use of force policy.

Require Officers to give verbal warning when possible before using deadly force: Yes

This is already included in our current policy in section 300.4, and reads, “Where feasible, the officer shall, prior to the use of force, make reasonable efforts to identify themselves as a peace officer and to warn that deadly force may be used, unless the officer has objectively reasonable grounds to believe the person is aware of those facts.”

Prohibit Officers from shooting at people in moving vehicles: No

I do not believe outright prohibitions in all circumstances is reasonable or accounts for situations where the driver of a vehicle may be threatening death or great bodily injury to others. Section 300.4.1 of our current policy already limits when an officer can shoot at a moving vehicle. It reads, “Officers should move out of the path of an approaching vehicle instead of discharging their firearm at the vehicle or any of its occupants. An officer should only discharge a firearm at a moving vehicle or its occupants when the officer reasonably believes there are no other reasonable means available to avert the threat of the vehicle, or if deadly force other than the vehicle is directed at the officer or others.”

Require Officers to exhaust all other reasonable alternatives before using deadly force: No

This language was previously suggested in AB 392, but was removed due to its ambiguity, no clearly defined means of objectively deciding what other alternatives might be reasonable in every situation, and concerns associated with the second-guessing of split-second decisions with the benefit of hindsight 20/20. Officers’ decisions concerning any use of force alternatives should be judged based on the totality of the circumstances and reasonable officer standard in AB 392.

Require Officers to intervene: Yes

This is already in our current policy in section 300.2.1, and reads, “Any officer present and observing another officer using force that is clearly beyond that which is objectively reasonable under the circumstances shall, when in a position to do so, intercede to prevent the use of unreasonable force. An officer who observes another employee use force that exceeds the degree of force permitted by law should promptly report these observations to a supervisor.”

Require comprehensive reporting: Yes

Comprehensive reporting on cases involving use of force is covered in our current policy in sections 300.5, 300.5.1, and 300.5.2. Additionally, SB 230 already requires “comprehensive and detailed requirements for prompt internal reporting and notification regarding a use of force incident.”

The Antioch Police Department takes great pride in serving our community with integrity and compassion. As I have previously mentioned, our officers undergo continuous training, covering topics such as proper use of force, fair and impartial policing, interpersonal communications, crisis intervention training, and de-escalation techniques.

These types of trainings have helped us minimize the need to use force in many situations. In 2019, Antioch Police Officers responded to more than 94,600 calls for service – of which, only 0.1% required a use of force. As noted in our current policy, each reportable use of force is tracked in a system called Blue Team, and reviewed and evaluated by a supervisor and members of my command staff to ensure the use of force (and circumstances surrounding it) are in legal compliance and within policy.

I hope this helped answer any questions you may have had.

Sincerely,

Chief T Brooks