Gov. Gavin Newsom’s letter to Oakland city leaders last month urging them to change the city’s policy on police vehicle chases seemed out of the ordinary: a governor weighing in forcefully on a somewhat-obscure element of local policing. But it’s part of a larger, slowly unfolding effort to carry out state intervention in local policing in Oakland and other California cities as crime concerns rise during an election year. In the past six months, Newsom has deployed California Highway Patrol officers to Oakland, then quadrupled their shifts; sent National Guard prosecutors to help the Alameda County District Attorney’s Office with drug cases, then chastised D.A. Pamela Price for not accepting the assistance quickly enough.

The state intervention in local policing — which includes extra deployments of CHP officers, National Guard lawyers , or both in Oakland, San Francisco, Bakersfield and Riverside — plays well with some worried residents and business owners. And it may help fend off right-wing critiques of California as a liberal dystopia. But it has drawn criticism from police accountability groups and privacy experts concerned about the effect on residents, especially communities of color.

“We’re a charter city. We have self rule,” said Brian Hofer, who chairs Oakland’s Privacy Advisory Commission, which recommends policy to the city on technology and privacy rights, including police surveillance. “We certainly need financial help, but we do not need this hostile takeover from Sacramento.”

Why Is State Intervention in Local Policing Occurring Now?

Read the full article about state intervention in local policing by Felicia Mello at CalMatters.