Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Oakland Cops Decide to Not Use Sound Cannon on Protesters
Politics / People / Law Enforcement & Crime Puck Lo — Wed, Jul 7, 2010 at 10:16 AM
Updated: The Oakland Police Department has shelved its controversial new crowd-control weapon, a sonic cannon capable of causing extreme pain, because of efforts by activists who posted links on Facebook to the recent purchase order of the Long Range Acoustic Device 300 X Mass Communications System.
“The LRAD is a very dangerous device that can cause permanent hearing loss. The Canadian Civil Liberties Union recently obtained an injunction against LRAD deployment in Toronto, Canada, after police threatened its use during the recent G-20 summit,” Oakland attorney Michael Siegel wrote in the Facebook note in which he tagged hip hop journalist Davey D and Oakland Councilwoman Jean Quan.
Long Range Acoustic Devices were originally developed for intelligible, high-volume communication at sea. But the “alert” blast setting on the device is what most concerns activists.
“The pitch of a sonic cannon is intended to be intolerable and to force dispersal of crowds,” audiologists testified in the Canadian Civil Liberties Union petition. According to the report, the “alert” function of the sound cannon emits sound beams at a frequency that damages the inner ear.
“OPD should not use such a dangerous and little-understood device on Oakland civilians. This device appears unfit for any use at all, much less against local residents exercising their First Amendment rights of expression and association,” Siegel wrote, referring to the impending demonstration scheduled for the day of former BART officer Johannes Mehserle’s trial verdict.
The letter spurred Quan and council President Jane Brunner to call Police Chief Anthony Batts. The following day, Siegel said, Batts told Quan and Brunner that he would not deploy the weapon against protesters who will convene at City Hall on the night of the verdict.
“Pressure culminated quickly,” Siegel said. “It was a victory.”
Update: Quan said it was unclear how much the Oakland Police Department paid for the sonic cannon or where it got the money to do so. But according to this source, sonic cannons cost $675,000.
Associate editor Robert Gammon contributed to this report
.
Comments (6)
Showing 1-6 of 6
In reference to "Section 218. Non-Interference in Administrative Affairs." No kidding it is rampant. I cannot get a returned call from many city employees, but if I call my council person, they can get a response for me. This is one of the big problems in Oakland, I think. The city council wants to keep it this way because when they are the only avenue to getting things done, their constituents feel a need to reelect them.
like
dislike
Lawngun,
You're right about the charter violation. But only if the conversation between Brunner, Quan and Batts involved Quan or Brunner giving Batts an order. That section of the charter is almost impossible to prove a violation on. A councilmember need only phrase their demand in the form of a concerned inquiry, and there's no violation. Plus if there is a violation, you'd need DA Nancy O'Malley to charge the councilmember, or there would be no consequence.
All the more reason to reform the city charter so it has some teeth.
Point One -- Could the reason, that noone knows where the OPD got the money for the LRAD 300X, be that the City did not buy it, but the County did? Those lovable anarchists over at indybay.org have a copy of the sole source procurement notice.
Point Two -- What Brunner and Quan did was violate the City Charter -- Section 218. Non-Interference in Administrative Affairs.
"Except for the purpose of inquiry, the Council and its members shall deal with the administrative service for which the City Administrator, Mayor and other appointed or elected officers are responsible, solely through the City Administrator, Mayor or such other officers. Neither the Council nor any Council member shall give orders to any subordinate of the City under the jurisdiction of the City Administrator or such other officers, either publicly or privately; nor shall they attempt to coerce or influence the City Administrator or such other officers, in respect to any contract, purchase of any supplies or any other administrative action; nor in any manner direct or request the appointment of any person to or his removal from office by the City Administrator or any of his subordinates or such other officers, nor in any manner take part in the appointment or removal of officers or employees in the administrative service of the City. Violation of the provisions of this section by a member of the Council shall be a misdemeanor, conviction of which shall immediately forfeit the office of the convicted member."
I dare the DA to press charges. Never will happen, though such interference is rampant.
Encouraging to see that the Chair of the Finance Committee has no idea where or how City Hall's budget is being spent. Speaks volumes to our budget mess. Good job, Jean.
The next time the police department whines about not having enough money to do community policing, tell them to sell their sonic cannon.
Author Archives
-
Police Begin Releasing Protesters
- Jul 9, 2010
-
Save the Sturgeon, Save the Delta?
- Jun 3, 2010
- More»
