Richmond reviews AB 481 military-equipment report as residents protest drone use and patrol-rifle deployments

The Richmond City Council on Tuesday heard a detailed presentation from Police Chief Timothy Simmons and Captain John Lopez on the Richmond Police Department's 2025 annual report under Assembly Bill 481, the state law requiring transparency for so-called "military equipment." The session drew a large public turnout and heated exchanges about drone use, patrol-rifle deployments and proposed future acquisitions.

Chief Simmons framed AB 481 as a transparency statute and said Richmond does not own equipment acquired through the federal Department of Defense surplus program; rather, the department's inventory includes unmanned aerial systems (UAS), a tactical robot, a mobile command center, patrol rifles, breaching tools, diversionary devices, chemical agents and less-lethal platforms. "AB 481 is not simply about equipment. It is about public trust, accountability, and ensuring the community understands how specialized equipment is acquired, governed and used," Simmons said.

RPD reported 166 reportable operational uses of covered equipment during the 2025 reporting period (excluding Drone-as-a-First-Responder, or DFR): 104 UAS deployments, 26 uses of diversionary devices, 13 less-lethal impact deployments, 9 mutual-aid armored supports, 8 breaching deployments, 5 chemical-agent deployments and 1 reportable patrol-rifle discharge. Separately, the department reported the DFR program recorded 766 deployments from May through December 2025; the DFR count is reported separately because the program has a distinct public-transparency platform.

The presentation included an explanation of staffing and fiscal impacts: RPD identified roughly $405,425 in equipment-related expenditures in 2025 and projected training and personnel costs for specialized readiness (SWAT training, patrol-rifle qualifications, DFR implementation). The department said it created a new electronic reporting form in 2025 to tally patrol-rifle deployments after council direction and that 86% of the recorded rifle deployments were connected to planned search warrants rather than random patrol uses.

Public comment drew sustained opposition. More than two dozen speakers and local organizations urged the council to deny future purchases—including a cited $483,667 armored-rescue vehicle estimate—and to require full itemized cost and injury reporting for each deployment. Several speakers highlighted an August 4, 2025 officer-involved shooting in which an officer-fired patrol rifle resulted in a fatality; critics said the incident underscores risks when military-caliber weapons are routinely available. Community advocates also pointed to demographic figures in the report showing disproportionate known deployments against Black residents and urged halting acquisitions until reporting gaps are closed.

Council members questioned the department on the acquisition logic (replacement versus expansion), why consumable inventories were large, how indoor drone use is authorized and whether the council's approval is required for certain purchases. Chief Simmons and Captain Lopez said consumables expire and are used for required training, that some increases correspond to equipping new hires, and that indoor drone deployments follow exigent-circumstance or warrant-based rules in the UAS policy. The chief asked the council to maintain consistent reporting expectations to permit the department to meet transparency demands without unsustainable administrative burdens.

The council did not make a final decision on new acquisitions during the meeting; procedural motions late in the agenda extended discussion time and the meeting adjourned with further items pending.

Representative quote: "These are not everyday weapons," said Julie Salomon, a Richmond resident, of the AB 481-listed tools. "When military weapons are becoming everyday weapons in our community, that's a problem."