Newsom v. Oakland
On December 27, 2024, California’s Governor Newsom continued his war against Oakland and civilian oversight, again vocally criticizing Oakland’s pursuit policy as enabling criminals to escape consequences. For the record, the Governor has provided zero evidence in support of his absurd request. All evidence shows to the contrary that such pursuits in dense urban areas are dangerous, and a financial and legal nightmare for municipal taxpayers. These chases aren’t just dangerous for suspects or bystanders. They’re also dangerous for the pursuing officers.
"You could be drunk. You could run a red light. You can come close to sideswiping a school bus during the morning hours, right in front of a police officer," Newsom said. "And the pursuit policy in Oakland says we cannot pursue that suspect." (KTVU) The Governor went on to personally and publicly challenge Oakland’s Police Commission to weaken the policy, which it wisely refused to do in October after two Oakland City Council Members also asked.
The Governor is not telling the truth about Oakland’s policy. Although such pursuits are generally restricted to those where reasonable suspicion exists that a violent crime has occurred, a pursuit can be authorized by a commander “when the fleeing suspect’s actions pose an immediate and serious threat to officers and the public.” (Sec. II B)
As the universe would dictate, less than 24 hours after his press conference, a high speed chase involving multiple police cars from another jurisdiction not subject to the policy (BART) collided with a medical supply van in West Oakland near the BART station, sending at least 3 officers and 1 civilian to the hospital.
According to former OPD Chief Armstrong’s research (presented at a public safety forum we attended), OPD’s pursuit policy reduced Oakland’s annual liability due to pursuit car crashes and property damage from $20M to $2M, a remarkable policy win. Also unstated by the Governor and local media - it was the Oakland Police Department, not Commission, which created the policy a decade ago in 2014. This policy has not received such criticism until the past year, as the Police Officer’s Association declared war against now-recalled Mayor Sheng Thao and began its work slowdown, similar to what we saw across the bay in San Francisco, as police stood idly by watching criminals in the act.
San Francisco voters recently fell for the argument that its pursuit policy was enabling criminals, voting to gut their policy during the primary election held on March 15, 2024. Multiple high speed chases in San Francisco have since ended in collisions, causing property damage and fatalities.
In late January, we will publish a new podcast on the topic of civilian oversight obstruction, featuring commissioners from San Diego and San Francisco. As the Mayors of San Diego, San Francisco, San Jose, Oakland, and other sizable California cities openly embrace a massive expansion of surveillance technology and data mining, make no mistake, these same individuals (all registered Democrats) are paving the path for the Trump administration to carry out his hate-filled agenda. Without state and local help, there simply aren’t enough federal agents to execute Trump’s vision. By blanketing our cities with surveillance technology, we are placing our own communities at great risk.
Secure Justice will continue saying this - do not rely on the state or your local city to defend you. If you think California (and Silicon Valley) are going to tighten up their privacy practices in a meaningful manner, you’re placing yourself in harms way.
We must defend ourselves. Thankfully you’re not alone. We’ll soon be posting updates on our privacy self-defense workshops and resource fairs. Stay tuned.
[Dec 31 update: BART PD confirmed to us that the injuries suffered during the collision were thankfully not life threatening, and all individuals were expected to fully recover.]