[Yesterday, in Part 2, Chief talked about the importance of a District Attorney bringing appropriate charges against criminal defendants, which brought up the subject of Pamela Price.]
SH: So this gets directly to Madame D.A.
LA: Yes.
SH: And from my reading of the news, Madame D.A. has said for the past year that she’s instituting two new practices. One, she will not bring felony charges against people under the age of 25, and number two, no enhancements. My assumption is that most of the violent criminal activity in Oakland is by people under the age of 25. Am I correct?
LA: Yeah. Well, the ages that Ceasefire research in Oakland has shown in particular, is that the age is pretty much between 18 and 35.
SH: So if I’m out there on the street and I hear the D.A., the top cop in Alameda County, is saying she’s not going to bust me for a felony, and what’s more, she’s going to go really light on me, even if I do get busted, doesn’t that embolden them?
LA: Yes.
SH: Thank you.
LA: Here’s the reality. Ceasefire will not survive or be successful if there’s isn’t strong support from the District Attorney to charge those that Ceasefire officers arrest for being involved in violence. It will not work. Ceasefire’s designed to have a stick and a carrot approach. They have approaches for services and support, and life coaching, but for those who don’t accept the message, you have to have stiff accountability.
SH: What does accountability look like?
LA: Accountability means that these individuals that have been messaged not to continue in violence have to face very stiff consequences, in terms of charging.
SH: Well, if we have a D.A. that won’t charge seriously, the whole system falls apart.
LA: I think that’s—it’s ironic that in that most recent article that targeted me and my work with Ceasefire, they didn’t address this particular issue.
SH: This particular issue is the whole—
LA: This is the crux of the entire strategy. The strategy does not work if you don’t have strong partnership with the District Attorney’s office to bring charges on those that continue to engage in violence.
SH: Do OPD cops feel that the D.A. kind of has a vendetta against them?
LA: I can’t speak to how Oakland cops feel. I haven’t been there for a year, and she’s been in office for a year, so I can’t really speak to how they feel. But I can say that, as someone who’s been in the [policing] job for over 25 years, that it is difficult as a police officer to go out and address crime if you don’t have the support from the District Attorney’s office to charge those you have arrested. And the most deflated you can be, as a police officer, is you put your life on the line to arrest someone who is involved in violent crime, only to see them out in a matter of days or hours. That has a negative impact on the officers.
SH: And that brings up the subject of judges.
LA: Yeah.
SH: To me, it’s shocking how little we know about our judges. Usually, they don’t even have opposition [in elections].
LA: Yeah.
SH: There’s really no central place we can find out, that I know of, what actually goes on in every case. How do we know if somebody gets arrested for attempted robbery of a 7-Eleven, how can I find out what happens to that case? Pamela Price isn’t going to tell me.
LA: Well, no. But these things are public information, in terms of people who are arrested and who are in custody for certain crimes, and then the disposition of those crimes, whether that person has been convicted or not—that’s all public information.
SH: When you say “public information,” it’s not. Where do you go?
LA: I mean, it’s supposed to be.
SH: That’s a big difference.
LA: I think there’s another question you have to pose to the District Attorney, about where is this information being inputted, why isn’t it available to the public?
SH: She doesn’t answer those questions.
LA: These are things that, you know, people have to be held accountable to. So that is the tough part: the public has a right to know these things, the public has to know what’s happening when people are arrested for certain crimes. It’s sad when we reach a point in society, particularly in this community, where the voices of those who are committing crimes have a stronger voice that the victims of crime.
SH: So when you were Chief of Police, did you have the ability to go to your computer and you could just type in some perp’s name or case number and see where that case is in the system?
LA: Yes.
SH: Can I do that?
LA: No.
SH: Why not?
LA: Because there is protected information in those systems. Those systems are only for law enforcement. Our ability to track—if a case was charged and if a person has a hearing, obviously it’s germane to law enforcement because in most cases our investigators have to testify, they have to bring evidence in those cases, the disposition of those cases matters in future charges that we recommend. So having people’s criminal histories, understanding what people’s prior contact with law enforcement looks like, is important to our investigations. So, yeah, we do have access to that in our system.
SH: Do you any more?
LA: No.
SH: I mean, did they take away your password or something?
LA: You have to be in law enforcement to have access to the system. And if you’re not in law enforcement, or work for a department that is allowed into the system, then you won’t have access to that system.
SH: Chief, is there anything more you want to say?
LA: No. I just look forward to the people of Oakland voicing their opinion, that we, even just as a resident of Oakland, we can’t stand by and allow our city to remain in this level of chaos. And for our community to be fearful of coming out and being part of our community. I think Oakland has always thrived based on its ability to come together and voice its opinion. We’ve always been one that spoke up on issues of concern for Oakland, and this is no different in this moment. Public safety is a real issue in this city, and I hope that people have the courage to speak out about it. And whatever happens in Oakland, I’ll be around this city to see what’s going on.
SH: Thank you, Chief.
[Editor’s note: The day after this conversation, a local media outlet reported that Chief Armstrong is considering a run for the At-Large seat on the City Council currently held by Rebecca Kaplan. I asked him, via email, to comment, and he said he hadn’t yet made up his mind.]
Steve Heimoff