Correspondence - #31 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Orozco, Norma From: Nathaniel Greensides <mynci90@gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2022 1:52 PM To: eComment; Hernandez, Johnathan Subject: Agenda Item 31 - May 3 2022 City Council Meeting Dear City Council Members, I write in support of the transparency aspect of the agenda item/ordinance which requires disclosure of military equipment owned and desired by SAPD - greater transparency of how and where our tax dollars go is never a bad thing in my opinion. Please, however, consider disallowing SAPD from procuring and maintaining military equipment in our City. I question the necessity of the military equipment which SAPD has listed out in Exhibit 2. Military equipment which can see inside structures of buildings without entry, drones which surveil from above outfitted with special sensors and cameras, and specialized vehicles are all equipment which 1. may infringe upon 4th amendment rights under the US Constitution, as well as Sections 5, 11, and 13 of Article 1 of California's state constitution and 2. Seemingly will not even be used for SAPD alone. It seems that SAPD equipment procurement is meant to bolster cross agency equipment inventories among various PDs in OC as well as OCSD. Santa Ana shouldn't be fronting the bill for other cities' desires to militarize their police. Santa Ana does not need military equipment on our streets. Maintaining such may only serve to make our streets more dangerous and increase the chances of PD causing unnecessary collateral damage in events where public safety is concerned. To militarize our streets would be irresponsible to many immigrants who call our City home after escaping from their home countries and towns where militarized police forces and groups exist. To protect and serve the community should not require lethal force. If any officer kills a person in their own community, that's not protecting and serving the community. Better mechanisms by which violence and "criminal" acts are pursued are necessary in lieu of militarization of our streets. Our streets are already over- militarized. To continue to militarize the police would serve as a direct statement that the City doesn't actually believe in its own motto of"Education First". Some of the technology procured by SAPD costs as much as it does because there are not enough engineers and firms to create such technologies. The money spent on the militarized equipment listed out by SAPD in Exhibit 2 would have been better spent ensuring that residents (youth and adults alike) have access to education for increased economic opportunities. I ask that you all vote against allowing SAPD to continue using military equipment. The wellbeing of our community depends on it. Sincerely, Nathaniel Greensides Ward 5 Resident i