One possible policy response to police militarization

Speaking Security Newsletter | Congressional Candidate Advisory Note 15 | 4 June 2020

DOD contributes to police militarization in a bunch ways (including this bullshit), but there’s a renewed interest in its transfer of military weapons and equipment to local/state law enforcement in particular, so that’s what this note is about.

Situation

^From this study

Military equipment to police forces, a (taxonomic) breakdown

Military equipment transferred to police forces falls into two categories: “uncontrolled” and “controlled.” I’m interested in terminating this whole relationship between DOD and police, but the transfer of “controlled” matériel is more of a problem:

^From this report

From January 2015 to August 2017, there was a third category, “prohibited”. Obama established this category through this Executive Order (EO 13688), which Trump revoked with this Executive Order (EO 13809). So all the items you see below are now lumped into the “controlled” category:

Policy proposal: Take it back

I’ve seen a lot of policy proposals (more on this later) designed to broadly restrict the flow of military-grade equipment to police forces, but none that call for an immediate, widespread return of this class of matériel.

A returns-oriented approach would be simpler and more effective. I also don’t see why it wouldn’t be possible. Two reasons:

1. Police forces get full ownership over “uncontrolled” DOD equipment after one year. Conversely, “controlled” equipment remains DOD property regardless of how long police forces hold onto the stuff.

2. DOD has yanked back “controlled” equipment from police forces before (albeit rarely).

Conclusion

More on DOD-led police militarization (structure, process, politics, etc) soon. I hope this one was useful despite not offering much background.

Thanks for your time!

In solidarity,

Stephen (stephen@securityreform.org; @stephensemler)