Oakland ad hoc debates stricter discipline ranges for level‑1 use‑of‑force incidents

Captain Hubbard, a police captain leading the ad hoc review, walked the panel through proposed changes to the discipline matrix and a list of incidents classified as "level‑1," the panel's most serious category of use of force. The group spent most of the meeting disputing whether any level‑1 incident that resulted in death, involved an intentional firearm discharge at a person, or created a substantial risk of death should start with termination rather than counseling or short suspensions.

Why it matters: The panel's work would change starting discipline ranges for officers found responsible in internal investigations, affecting whether cases move immediately to termination or allow suspensions and other mitigations. Captain Hubbard said level‑1 incidents trigger an elevated investigative response — internal affairs, homicide and an executive force review board — to ensure rigorous fact‑finding, documentation and legal defensibility.

Panelists debated specific bullets within the level‑1 definition. Multiple members argued that "If it ended in death, it can only be 1 thing and 1 thing only, termination," and pushed to remove counseling as a first‑step option for many level‑1 outcomes. For incidents that create a substantial risk of death (for example, chokeholds or prolonged restraint that could cause loss of consciousness), the ad hoc ranged between a 15‑work‑day suspension up to termination, with members noting limited mitigation when a contact was transitory and quickly corrected on video.

On unintentional firearm discharges that cause injury, opinions diverged. Some members favored immediate, severe discipline; others argued the case should be elevated to a level‑1 investigation first so facts about intent, weapon malfunction or operational stress can be established and the case can be downgraded or exonerated if warranted. Captain Hubbard stressed that starting at level‑1 preserves investigatory rigor and litigation readiness.

Community input: Assata, a community participant who addressed the panel, asked whether victim circumstances — pregnancy, disability, youth or age — should affect how incidents are classified and disciplined, and whether "counseling" includes clinical or social‑work referrals. Captain Hubbard said such factors are weighed in determining reasonableness and can aggravate discipline; he also acknowledged the ad hoc could better define meaningful counseling beyond a supervisory reprimand.

Next steps: The ad hoc agreed to remove counseling as the presumptive starting sanction for many level‑1 bullets, drafted a working range (often 15 work days to termination) that the chief could aggravate or mitigate based on facts, and will reconvene after a month‑long pause for March while community chief‑search meetings occur. The panel is scheduled to pick the work back up in April.