Los Altos police present annual military‑equipment report and seek one reconnaissance robot

Los Altos police presented their annual military‑equipment report to a public committee and asked the City Council to approve one new piece of equipment: a Recon Robotics Throwbot 2, a throwable reconnaissance robot priced at roughly $19,000 to be paid from a COPS grant rather than the general fund.

The department said it posted the 2025 annual report Feb. 4 as required by AB41 and held the required public meeting within 30 days; the report will go to the council’s March 10 agenda for reapproval. The presenter, identified at the meeting as the captain, said AB41 requires a local council to approve the department’s military‑equipment policy and an accompanying ordinance and to review them annually. "AB41 ... requires that a city's local council has to approve our military equipment policy and then approve an ordinance," the captain said during the overview.

The report shows limited field use last year beyond training: the department deployed static drones to scenes 17 times for incidents including burglaries, traffic collisions, a fire and mutual‑aid assistance to Palo Alto for a death investigation; the captain said there were no complaints or policy violations reported. The department listed maintenance costs of about $4,800 and said it included training costs this year after guidance; "the total cost that we put in the report was 318,851," the captain said, adding the figure represents a conservative high‑end estimate using top‑scale officer pay and some overtime assumptions. The captain summarized the year’s total equipment and related costs as "about 322,000."

The department proposed several inventory updates in the redline version of the policy: removing ten less‑lethal shotguns (retaining one that has been converted for chemical‑munition deployment); discarding obsolete less‑lethal rounds; and disposing or selling an old Benelli shotgun no longer in use. The presentation also asked council to approve increases in ammunition quantities tied to training needs: raising 5.56/.223 maximum inventory from roughly 10,800 to 42,000 rounds and increasing .308 rounds modestly (from about 3,000 to 3,300). The captain explained the larger 5.56 request reflects the move to individually issued rifles and the associated training each officer must complete.

To avoid supply problems, the department asked to remove a brand designation for certain ammunition so it can buy comparable brands during shortages without returning to council for a brand swap; the captain said that narrowly named entries sometimes prevent timely purchases when a manufacturer is out of stock. The committee reviewed the per‑case pricing cited in the report (example cited: a 500‑round case of .223 at $280) and the presenter reiterated the department was not seeking additional general‑fund dollars for ammunition purchases.

Community members pressed for clearer public presentation and more transparent reporting. One attendee asked that the annual report show the inventory at the start and end of each reporting year (to illustrate changes during the year) and said placing the inventory as a separate attachment made it look distinct from the policy. The captain acknowledged the perception issue and explained the department uses an attached word document because the backend policy software is difficult to edit; inventory quantity changes still require council action. "We can make the linkage invisible to the public so they understand it’s the same policy," the captain said, describing options for clearer website links between the redlined inventory and the ordinance text.

Residents also pressed the department about what counts as a reportable "use" for rifles. The captain said the law does not treat simply carrying or ‘‘slinging’’ a rifle as a usage and that individually issued rifles are not required to be included in the annual usage total, though the department is describing them for transparency. Multiple attendees said visible rifles can create a perception of militarization even if not counted as an operational use; the presenter said tracking every instance of officers removing rifles from vehicles would be burdensome and might not change council decisions, but agreed to consider clearer language in the annual report to describe how and when rifles are removed and how "usage" is defined.

The meeting also covered technical questions about proposed equipment and training: the Throwbot 2 can be thrown through a window or pushed through slightly ajar doors to provide interior recon that drones cannot reliably perform; chemical munitions in the inventory include baffled indoor munitions and single‑shot projectiles and are managed and used by trained SWAT specialists. The captain said chemical‑munitions training is conducted at controlled facilities (gas houses, scenario villages and an annual exercise at Camp Roberts) and not inside city limits. Regarding storage, the department keeps some SWAT munitions at Mountain View because that agency provides explosive‑safe storage under the joint powers arrangement.

Next steps: the department will take the redlined inventory and the annual report to the Los Altos City Council on March 10. Committee members asked the department to present clearer online links between the report and inventory and to include clarifying language in future reports about rifle removal and the meaning of "usage."