OPD Chief Mitchell Proposes to Reverse Armstrong's Pursuit Policy, Modify Supervisory Permission
OPD Chief Floyd Mitchell proposed formal changes to the OPD pursuit policy at the Oakland Police Commission [OPC] last Thursday night. The move tops nearly a year's worth of public questions on the policy and whose job it is to change it—with the public imagination and media reporting since 2023 mistakenly placing ownership of the over a decade-old policy on the OPC, after years of OPD-initiated changes.
When California Governor Gavin Newsom demanded the Police Commission direct a pursuit policy review process last December, it was the second time in a year that the Commission had been called on to address a policy it has never had anything to do with. Earlier in 2024, CMs Treva Reid and Kevin Jenkins tasked the OPC by resolution to review the policy and suggest revisions. The OPC held several community townhalls, spoke to subject matter experts and consulted various best practices documents, including two that the CMs had included in their legislation as best practices reference for judging the policy—one from the Police Executive Research Forum [PERF] as well as the 2022 California Commission on Police Officer Standards and Training pursuit guidelines. The Commission recommended no changes in an often pointed response to groups like Empower Oakland, which have been organizing around the issue and on relaxing OPD standards and increasing OPD budgeting.
Previously Unquestioned OPD Ownership of Policy
Prior to 2024, City agencies and the OPC had operated under the understanding that the pursuit policy is the purview of the OPD Chief—as that had been the practice since the inception of the Commission in 2017. In December 2018, in the OPC’s first year of operation, former Chief Anne Kirkpatrick changed the policy with no OPC input, nor reporting. Again in 2022, five years after the founding of the OPC, former Chief Leronne Armstrong unilaterally modified the pursuit policy, limiting chases to no more than 50 MPH, and never brought the policy to the Commission. In both instances, the OPC did not independently agendize the pursuit policy and the changes were publicly considered to be the OPD Chief’s to make. In an address to the OPC last year, Mitchell told the Commission that he believed updating the pursuit policy was the Chief's role.
Something to bookmark and put in your back pocket. This is Oakland Police Chief Floyd Mitchell stating clearly, that while partnering with Police Commission to make the process to review the pursuit policy public, the decision is and has been the Police Chief's to make. pic.twitter.com/PavIOTBRBf
— Jaime Omar Yassin (@hyphy_republic) January 11, 2025
Oakland City Attorney Opinion's Hazy Role for the OPC
But in March, the Oakland City Attorney [OCA] issued an opinion that suggested that the OPC did have a charter-related role in terms of use of force and other elements of the Negotiated Settlement Agreement [NSA]. The OCA referred to a 2012 court order that added the "reduction of high speed pursuits" as a task in the NSA.
Pursuit policy is within the Commission’s authority pursuant to Charter sections 604(b)(4) & (5) as policy that “contains elements expressly listed in Federal court orders or Federal court settlements.” Certain portions of pursuit policy also implicate “use of force” and “use of force review boards,” which are additional categories of policy that are covered by Charter sections 604(b)(4) & (5). Because pursuits are expressly listed in court orders in Allen v. Oakland (NSA litigation), however, the most explicit grounds for the Commission’s authority over pursuit policy is that it categorically “contains elements expressly listed in Federal court orders or Federal court settlements.”
In addition to use of force and use of force review boards—which pursuit actions may subsequently require—the 2012 order adds "reducing" pursuits to the original tasks, and thus adds the pursuit policy into the areas where the Commission is allowed to use its policy approval and policy making role.
What the opinion specifically means for the Commission’s responsibility in determining the policy is unclear. Enhancing the policy from a crime-fighting perspective was never in the Federal Monitor's brief. The Monitor focused narrowly on pursuit use of force and use of force review boards and specifically on reducing high-speed pursuits, which at that time were problematic.
The OCA opinion refers to that focus on "reduction" several times in explaining the sourcing of the policy role for the OPC:
The Order states in pertinent part: “Within 60 days of his or her appointment, the Compliance Director will file a list of benchmarks for the OPD to address, resolve, and reduce: (1) incidents involving the unjustified use of force, including those involving the drawing and pointing of a firearm at a person or an officer-involved shooting; (2) incidents of racial profiling and bias-based policing; (3) citizen complaints; and (4) high-speed pursuits.
Updated [compliance] task lists include “Resolve/Reduce high speed pursuits” as a “Compliance Director 12/12/12 Order” task. See e.g., Allen v. Oakland, Dkt. 1660-1, Parties’ Joint Case Mgmt. Statement, Ex. A, 3 (2024).
The 12/12/12 federal Court Order, in effect at present and in 2016 when Charter section 604 took effect, expressly lists the City’s need to meet benchmarks to reduce or mitigate “high-speed pursuits.”
In essence, outside parties have demanded the OPC take a policy it had no role in crafting, and use the scope of Federal Monitor actions as the basis for amending it—but with a goal of increasing pursuits, rather than the Monitor's stated goal of ordering OPD policies that decrease pursuits.
After 2012, OPD did revise its policies with Monitor approval, instituting the bulk of the current pursuit policies. The changes brought down pursuits and vehicular violence, and the subsequent court’s focus and review of the pursuit issue waned.
Mitchell Presents Policy Changes to Commission
Mitchell’s policy document suggests he is proposing policy changes under the OPC’s charter-related role in adjudicating OPD policy, Charter section 604 (b) 5—that text requires policies under the charter-mandated purview of the Commission be first introduced to the OPC for review, allowing the OPC to approve, modify or reject the changes.
Under those rules, the OPC now has 120 days to accept, amend, or reject Mitchell’s policy proposal—changes or rejection would put the policy before Council to make a final decision. If the Commission does nothing at all, the policy goes into effect automatically. But it’s not even entirely clear that Mitchell or the OPC must follow this path.
Proposed Changes Would Delete Former Chief Armstrong's Pursuit Policy
Ironically, Armstrong’s Special Order 9212 pursuit policy update has become the main focus of current Chief Floyd Mitchell’s proposed changes. The formal policy change that Mitchell presented to the OPC Thursday is almost exclusively focused on removing the 2.5-year old rule that requires supervisorial permission to continue pursuits over 50 MPH on city streets. But Mitchell’s policy update also contains a significant change in reporting requirements for pursuits.
Mitchell suggested that Armstrong was moved to craft 9212 during an outlier year of high pursuits and two high-profile pursuit-related deaths in 2022. That year, an unsanctioned pursuit led to the accident that took the life of Lolomania Soakai and severely injured members of his family on International Blvd in East Oakland in June. Just four months later in October, Agustin Coyotl was killed on San Leandro Blvd in East Oakland during a high speed OPD pursuit of another driver. According to Mitchell, 2022 was a high water mark year for police-involved collisions and pursuits over what was a significantly lower trend over the ten years from 2015 to 2025. Armstrong instituted 9212 in December of that year.
In his presentation, Mitchell noted that in 2023, after 9212 went into effect, there was a 70% decrease in pursuits and that the 50 MPH limit increased the frequency of non-response pursuits by officers. Mitchell said this was because the higher bar incentivized officers to give up and forego calling in for permission to pursue a fleeing vehicle the officer intended to stop. Mitchell essentially argued that Armstrong’s policy reaction was understandable in context of 2022’s OPD vehicular violence, but that the changes went too far.
Mitchell Abandons More Extensive Proposals
In past public comments, Mitchell suggested that he was considering a policy change that would also allow pursuits for sideshows and property crime under certain circumstances—but Mitchell told Commissioners on Thursday that he'd abandoned those ideas because they break from nationally recognized best practices. Mitchell instead contends that the only deviation from best practice standards in the current policy is the 50 MPH limit. The current policy already has an exigency clause that allows pursuits with supervisory permission “when the fleeing suspect’s actions pose an immediate and serious threat to officers and the public”.
A Subtle Change in Text with Significant Repercussions
Along with the removal of 9212, Mitchell’s proposed changes also alter the rules around supervisorial authorization for pursuits. Currently, an officer must request supervisorial permission to engage in a pursuit prior to initiating it—a requirement that has been in the policy for over a decade. Mitchell’s proposed changes would now allow an officer to first begin the pursuit and ask permission at some unspecified point. Mitchell’s changes add the text “Once an officer initiates a pursuit” and ”to continue”
The two attorneys that represent the plaintiffs in the suit against OPD that created court oversight and the Negotiated Settlement Agreement, John Burris and Jim Chanin, both laid out their opposition to the change in a letter to the Chief that’s also cc’d to the Federal Monitor, Robert Warshaw. The letter is included in the information packet for Mitchell’s changes. Burris and Chanin suggest that under the new policy, officers engaging in pursuits may become immune to oversight.
“it will be very difficult, if not impossible to discipline an officer for failing to notify his or her supervisor,” the two attorneys write.
Burris and Chanin also warn that combined with the removal of 9212, the supervisor would be relieved of oversight for their subordinate officers' pursuit actions.
Commission Chair Garcia-Acosta noted that he and other Commissioners also had concerns about the language, especially in light of the comments of Burris and Chanin. But Mitchell countered that the change in language merely acknowledges the reality that an officer has usually already initiated some type of pursuit by the time such authorization would be requested.
“So what we're saying is, if the officer takes that action to get behind, or speed up, to catch the vehicle or do a u-turn and then gets on the radio and says, ‘Hey, I'm pursuing this vehicle going this direction and this speed request permission to continue to pursue’... that that officer's action during this point in time falls within the guidelines about policy,” Mitchell said.
During public comment, Anne Jenks, a member of Coalition for Police Accountability observed that the officers who caused the death of Lolomania Soakai and prompted Armstrong’s policy changes would have been able to continue their same unlawful “ghost chase” under color of authority by requesting permission to pursue after they’d already escalated at high speed.
“Well, what would those rookies have done? 'Oh, we intended to ask for permission, we just didn't get around to it',” Jenks said.
Chanin and Burris also suggested that they may oppose the policy with the court should it be instituted—and that the court could order the OPD to reverse the policy itself. Mitchell noted in passing that Warsaw’s team had also flagged the language.
At the meeting, the Commissioners gave few hints about supporting or opposing Mitchell’s proposal beyond the concerns around the changes in timing for requesting pursuit permission. Commissioner Dawitt seemed to encapsulate many of the comments from about a dozen attendees who have been pressuring the Commission to change the pursuit policy despite the fact that the Commission has never had a role in crafting it. Dawitt complained that he believed the changes didn’t "go far enough" and had hoped that permission to pursue for property and other crimes would have been included. Dawitt was echoed by D7 Council member Ken Houston, who also attended the meeting.
“I don’t think [the policy is] tough enough…did I hear that if someone runs into a store and runs away that we can’t chase them? That’s not tough enough...we have to bring back law and order to this city,” Houston said.
The Commission moved on from the item without proposing or indicating any action. It's not clear where the policy goes next.
Eminent Domain for Firehouse Moves Forward
Last Tuesday, with little discussion, City Council took the first step in using state eminent domain laws to acquire property in East Oakland to construct a new home for Fire Station 4, currently housed in a nearby dilapidated, ancient building. The passage of a "resolution of necessity" allows the City to move forward in its quest to buy the property at market rates—but its still unclear what might happen if the owner of the site, East Bay Blueprint and Supply Company—were to refuse the offer.
Several CMs acknowledged the weight of the concept of eminent domain in discussion, especially in Oakland, where it is historically known as having been a displacer of Oakland’s Black population. CMs and the city report stressed that the City would compensate the owner at market rate for the facility and help logistically and financially in locating a new site, and moving the business elsewhere.
CM Carroll Fife encapsulated the sentiment:
“Eminent domain has been used historically in the city of Oakland to displace, specifically in my district, Black homeowners and small businesses, and it has a history of being problematic for so many reasons. That is not what's happening here. Again, this business is being offered fair market value for this property to move to a different location and a host of other resources from the city of Oakland,”
CM Zac Unger acknowledged the controversial history of Eminent Domain, but also noted the dire situation for Fire House 4:
“This fire station currently in use is so old that the firefighters’ kitchen is actually in the hay loft that we used to use for the horses. We are one OSHA complaint, one broken pipe away from not having a fire station [in the San Antonio neighborhood]. We do not undertake this lightly. It's incredibly important that we have a firehouse in one of the most complex and complicated fire districts in the city,” Unger, a former firefighter and President of the Oakland firefighters union local, told the public.
At a previous meeting, the business and site owner, Grace Von Querner, made statements that suggested she was not completely on board with the process. But Von Querner did not appear at the meeting to speak on the resolution. The vote, due to state laws, required a two thirds majority to pass—despite requests to stay for the meeting and ensure required quorum, CM Noel Gallo left the meeting. The “resolution of necessity” passed with a unanimous vote of the present CMs, however.
CAO Has Still Not Hired Consultant to Review OPW Overtime Issues; Auditor Suggests Overpayment Issue is Likely City Wide
In a brief discussion of an Oakland Independent Auditor’s report that found a significant overtime overcharging in public works, City Auditor Michael C. Houston suggested publicly that he believed the problem is likely city-wide. The CAO for its part, says it hasn’t done much about the alleged problem, and is still conferring with the City Attorney’s office over next steps.
The Auditor’s report found that 368 Public Works employees and 158 OakDOT workers received overtime paid at a higher level than the Fair Labor Standards Act [FLSA] requirements. The report alleges that the City paid around $1.6 MM in additional overtime payments in Public Works, and to a lesser degree, OakDOT, than it was required to over a period of around 6 years from the practice's inception in 2018 to 2024 when the investigation was undertaken. Though cities are allowed to pay over the standard, Houston told CMs he found neither rationale nor stated purpose for doing so.
“The excessive payment wasn’t based on anything that’s documented in any authoritative records in the City,” Houston said. “The worksheet [from payroll] lays out the calculation pretty clearly. The question is, how did that calculation come to be,” Auditor Houston said.
Although the City Auditor’s reports typically have findings and recommendations that the City Administrator's office is required to respond to and try to implement, the CAO has not yet issued a response, or taken much of any action, according to Assistant City Administrator Betsy Lake. At a previous Finance Committee meeting, CAO Jestin Johnson told committee members that the City was in the process of hiring a consultant to review the Auditor's findings and City agreements with bargaining units to resolve the questions. But Lake told CMs that the CAO had not yet hired a third party consultant several weeks later.
“As far as I am aware we’re working with the City Attorney’s office. We have not hired a separate consultant through the City Administrator’s Office,” Lake said. Lake added that the CAO is working on a response, but had no date for its introduction. CAO Johnson reiterated the City’s contention that the office must review MOUs and other agreements.
Auditor Houston also confirmed that the audit was confined to one whistleblower’s complaint about Public Works and Oakdot, but that the overpayment issue was likely not confined to those departments.
“We don’t have any reason to believe that this issue isn’t much more widespread than this investigation focused on. It could potentially be city-wide,” Houston said.
Public Works has Oakland’s third largest departmental staff after OPD and OFD; a similar overage in overtime to the OPD and OFD sworn staff would likely represent tens of millions in overpayment over the same period from 2018 to present.
Jenkins Returns to Council President Role–Gallo Replaced as Public Safety Chair by Wang, Senior CM Now Has No Chair Seats
Last Tuesday marked an expected shift in Council roles as Council Member Kevin Jenkins returned to the Council President’s chair after his 5 month stint as interim Mayor. But the new roster leaves the Council’s senior member, Noel Gallo, with no leadership role.
Gallo spent the last five months as Interim Council President during Jenkins absence, as well as Chair of the Rules Committee, a seat usually paired with the Presidency. Gallo was also the Chair of the Public Safety Committee during that time, a committee that rarely met from January to May.
New comer Charlene Wang will take the Public Safety chair and the reshuffled deck now has Gallo with no Chair roles. Gallo is also off the Public Safety Committee as well, but transitions to Life Enrichment. After having one of the most powerful profiles on Council, Gallo now joins Freshman CM Ken Houston as one of only two CMs with no Chair position—Houston has not chaired a committee since he began his first term in January.
This Week at Council
This week there will be a full day of committees on Tuesday as well as a “study session” for the budget process on Wednesday that may continue to Thursday. The meeting will mark the beginning of the FY 25-27 budget process and will be the Council’s second official discussion of the budget, after a statutorily required introduction of the budget two weeks ago. That meeting was perfunctory, but did introduce a budget “errata” which significantly changed budgeting for the Oakland Police Department and with the proceeds, refunded one of two firehouses that was budgeted to go dark in the coming fiscal year.
Council members will introduce a very broad outline of their budgetary visions, and direction for the City Administrator in the budgeting process and in the two years to come—almost all are suggesting either a level of officer staffing, or budgeted officer staffing, well above what the Mayor's budget proposes and what OPD has suggested is attainable with six academies in the coming two years. Some of those proposals are vague, and appear aspirational.
Notable Legislative Items at Committees
—Informational Report on City-Wide Staffing to April 2025
—Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 3rd Quarter (Revenue/Expenditure Report, see here
—Fiscal Year 2026-30 Five-Year Financial Forecast
—19th Street Bike Station Contract Renewal
—LGBTQ Cultural District Rainbow Crosswalks Proposal
—Fiscal Year 2025-26 External Funds for OakDOT for various City projects
Community and Economic Development
–Amending Oakland Municipal Special Event Permits to add a late fee for Special Event applications
—General Plan and Housing Element Annual Progress Reports 2024
—MOU with Community Initiatives for Town Nights: The City has stopped financing and operating Town Nights, but proposes to continue the program through an MOU with a fiscal sponsor that will hold the events under an umbrella partnership with host community orgs.
—Ordinance To Designate The City Of Oakland Fire Hazard Severity Zone:
The City is required to incorporate state findings into an ordinance, overlaid on Oakland’s fire severity map.
—OPD Federal Taskforce 2024 Annual Reports
Informational report on OPD’s Federal Law Enforcement Agency task forces
—OPD ShotSpotter Informational Report
As a requirement of renewal of the OPD’s contract with Soundthinking/Shotspotter last year, during an emotional and difficult legislative process, the OPD agreed to offer more frequent reports for its Shotspotter technology use. Some questions here about what entity actually created the report, given the formatting and pov.
—MACRO Program Info Report, more on the report after presentation
Comments ()