July 14, 2026 · City Council
Subscribe via RSS: City of Berkeley City CouncilCity of Berkeley Meetings
Accountability (ODPA) Annual Report From: Police Accountability Board, Director of Police Accountability Contact: Kathy Lee, Office of Director of Police Accountability, (510) 981-4950 Adjournment I hereby request that the City Clerk of the City of Berkeley cause personal notice to be given to each member of the Berkeley City Council on the time and place of said meeting, forthwith. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the official seal of the City of Berkeley to be affixed on this 9th day of July, 2026. /s/ Adena Ishii, Mayor Public Notice – this Proclamation serves as the official agenda for this meeting. ATTEST: Mark Numainville, City Clerk NOTICE CONCERNING YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS: If you object to a decision by the City Council to approve or deny a use permit or variance for a project the following requirements and restrictions apply: 1) No lawsuit challenging a City decision to deny (Code Civ. Proc. §1094.6(b)) or approve (Gov. Code 65009(c)(5)) a use permit or variance may be filed more than 90 days after the date the Notice of Decision of the action of the City Council is mailed. Any lawsuit not filed within that 90-day period will be barred. 2) In any lawsuit that may be filed against a City Council decision to approve or deny a use permit or variance, the issues and evidence will be limited to those raised by you or someone else, orally or in writing, at a public hearing or prior to the close of the last public hearing on the project. Archived indexed video streams are available at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas. Channel 33 rebroadcasts the following Wednesday at 9:00 a.m. and Sunday at 9:00 a.m. Tuesday, July 14, 2026 AGENDA Page 2 Page 2 Communications to the City Council are public record and will become part of the City’s electronic records, which are accessible through the City’s website. Please note: e-mail addresses, names, addresses, and other contact information are not required, but if included in any communication to the City Council, will become part of the public record. If you do not want your e-mail address or any other contact information to be made public, you may deliver communications via U.S. Postal Service to the City Clerk Department at 2180 Milvia Street. If you do not want your contact information included in the public record, please do not include that information in your communication. Please contact the City Clerk Department for further information. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection at the public counter at the City Clerk Department located on the first floor of City Hall located at 2180 Milvia Street, and through the City's online records portal: https://records.cityofberkeley.info/. Agendas, agenda reports, and revised/supplemental material may be accessed via the online agenda for this meeting at: berkeleyca.gov/council-agendas and may be accessed at reference desks at the following locations: City Clerk Department - 2180 Milvia Street, First Floor Tel: 510-981-6900, TDD: 510-981-6903, Fax: 510-981-6901 Email: clerk@berkeleyca.gov Libraries: Main – 2090 Kittredge Street, Claremont Branch – 2940 Benvenue, West Branch – 1125 University, North Branch – 1170 The Alameda, Tarea Hall Pittman South Branch – 1901 Russell COMMUNICATION ACCESS INFORMATION: This meeting is being held in a wheelchair accessible location. To request a disability-related accommodation(s) to participate in the meeting, including auxiliary aids or services, please contact the Disability Services specialist at ada@berkeleyca.gov or (510) 981-6418 (V) at least three business days before the meeting date. Attendees at public meetings are reminded that other attendees may be sensitive to various scents, whether natural or manufactured, in products and materials. Please help the City respect these needs. Captioning services are provided at the meeting, on B-TV, and on the Internet. In addition, assisted listening devices for the hearing impaired are available from the City Clerk prior to the meeting, and are to be returned before the end of the meeting. If you have obtained interpretation services for your use during a City Council meeting and would like to request assistance, please contact the City Clerk Department at (510) 981-6900, clerk@berkeleyca.gov, or in-person during the meeting. Questions regarding public participation may be addressed to the City Clerk Department (510) 981-6900 or by email at clerk@berkeleyca.gov. Tuesday, July 14, 2026 AGENDA Page 3 Page 3 Page 4 Page 1 of 73 01 Special Meeting Item SPECIAL MEETING July 14, 2026 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Police Accountability Board Office of the Director of Police Accountability Submitted by: Katherine Lee, Interim Director of Police Accountability Subject: 2025 Police Accountability Board (PAB) & Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) Annual Report INTRODUCTION The 2025 Annual Report of the Police Accountability Board (PAB) and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) reflects the continued evolution of Berkeley’s civilian oversight system. In accordance with Section 125(16) of the Berkeley City Charter, this report documents the oversight activities conducted during the calendar year, including investigations and a variety of policy work. This report includes all Charter-mandated reporting components: Board Activities (§125(16)(b)(1)): A summary of the number, type, and disposition of complaints filed with both the Board and BPD; an overview of policy complaints; and any additional information requested by the Board or City Council. Investigation and Disciplinary Processes (§125(16)(b)(2)): A description of the procedures used by the ODPA and BPD to investigate misconduct and determine disciplinary outcomes. Training, Education, and Early Warning Systems (§125(16)(b)(3)): A summary of BPD’s training initiatives and any early intervention systems in use. Policy and Training Issues Identified in Investigations (§125(16)(b)(4)): Key findings and concerns that emerged during complaint investigations. Trends in Stops, Citations, Arrests, and Searches (§125(16)(b)(5)): Data analysis on vehicle and pedestrian stops, including demographic breakdowns, and reasons and outcomes of stops, in accordance with the City’s Fair and Impartial Policing policies. Use of Force and Officer-Involved Shootings (§125(16)(b)(6)): An examination of patterns in use of force incidents and officer-involved shootings. The structure of this report mirrors these Charter requirements, with each section dedicated to the specific mandates outlined above. 1900 Addison Street, 3rd Floor, Berkeley, CA 94704 ● Tel: (510) 981-4950 E-Mail: dpa@berkeleyca.gov Website: https://berkeleyca.gov/dpa Page 5 Page 2 of 73 Internal 2025 PAB and ODPA Annual Report SPECIAL MEETING July 14, 2026 CURRENT SITUATION AND ITS EFFECTS Under Berkeley City Charter Section 125(1), the purpose of the PAB is to promote public trust through independent and objective civilian oversight of the Berkeley Police Department. The PAB ensures meaningful community participation in the development and review of Police Department policies, practices, and procedures, and provides a mechanism for the prompt, impartial, and fair investigation of complaints filed by members of the public against sworn police employees. The ODPA is responsible for supporting the PAB in fulfilling its duties, investigating complaints, making independent factual findings, and recommending corrective action when appropriate. The Annual Report provides a means for all stakeholders – the City Council, the Berkeley Police Department, the residents of Berkeley, and the larger community – to review the accomplishments of the PAB and the ODPA in 2025 and assess how they are meeting their Charter-mandated obligations. Additionally, the data analyses in the report provide a snapshot of significant metrics in police-civilian encounters during the year. ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY AND CLIMATE IMPACTS There are no identifiable environmental effects, climate impacts, or sustainability opportunities associated with the subject of this report. FISCAL IMPLICATIONS Specific fiscal implications related to items referred to within this report are addressed in the biennial budget process. Additional information on cost can be provided as needed. CONTACT PERSON Katherine Lee, Interim Director of Police Accountability, (510) 981-4950 Attachments: 1: 2025 PAB and ODPA Annual Report Page 6 Page 3 of 73 Page 7 Page 4 of 73 TABLE OF CONTENTS MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR OF THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD ..................................................... 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... 3 ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS AND DISPOSITIONS ............................................................................................ 5 Investigative Outcomes .................................................................................................................................. 6 Administrative Closures.................................................................................................................................. 7 Agreement Rate Analysis ............................................................................................................................... 9 BPD Complaint Data ..................................................................................................................................... 10 PAB’S POLICY WORK IN 2025........................................................................................................................... 13 Oversight of Policies and Practices ............................................................................................................. 13 Policy Complaints ......................................................................................................................................... 17 Policy Subcommittees .................................................................................................................................. 19 BPD TRENDS AND PATTERNS IN VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN STOPS, AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES ......................................................................................................................................................... 21 Methodological Considerations and Analytical Limitations .......................................................................21 Stop Data Overview ....................................................................................................................................... 23 Demographics of Individuals Being Stopped and Bias Assessment ....................................................25 Housing Status Contextualization ........................................................................................................... 30 BPD TRENDS AND PATTERNS REGARDING USE OF FORCE AND OFFICER INVOLVED SHOOTINGS .........35 Use of Force Levels, Outcomes, and Demographic Trends .......................................................................35 Behavioral and Mental Health Factors......................................................................................................... 41 Officer-Involved Shootings ........................................................................................................................... 42 BPD TRAINING AND EDUCATION ..................................................................................................................... 44 PROGRESS, CHALLENGES, AND FUTURE PRIORITIES ....................................................................................45 2025 Accomplishments ................................................................................................................................ 45 Expanding Policy Review and Oversight ................................................................................................. 45 Strengthening Community Engagement ................................................................................................. 46 Building Partnerships and Professional Collaboration ..........................................................................46 Challenges Encountered During 2025 ......................................................................................................... 47 PAB Membership, ODPA Staffing and Resource Constraints................................................................47 Operational and Procedural Challenges .................................................................................................. 48 Community Engagement Challenges ...................................................................................................... 48 Priorities for 2026 ......................................................................................................................................... 49 Complete and Implement Permanent Regulations ................................................................................49 Page 8 Page 5 of 73 Strengthen Policy Review and Oversight Capacity .................................................................................49 Expand Community Engagement and Public Awareness ......................................................................49 Improve Organizational Capacity and Performance Monitoring ...........................................................50 Strengthen Partnerships and Collaboration ............................................................................................ 50 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 51 GUIDING DOCUMENTS AND AUTHORITY ........................................................................................................ 52 APPENDIX 1. 2025 POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD MEMBERS AND OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR OF POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY STAFF .................................................................................................................... 53 APPENDIX 2. INVESTIGATIVE PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES AND INVESTIGATION OUTCOMES .........54 APPENDIX 3. BPD TRAINING AND EDUCATION DATA ...................................................................................64 ii | P a g e Page 9 Page 6 of 73 MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR OF THE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD To the City and Community of Berkeley, On behalf of the Police Accountability Board, I am honored to contribute to the 2025 Annual Report. This year tested the Board and the Office of the Director of Police Accountability in new ways, even as we deepened our commitment to the system of independent civilian oversight that the voters of Berkeley envisioned when they created these institutions in 2020. As a volunteer body appointed to represent the public, the Board approaches its work with humility and an unwavering belief in the power of democratic accountability. Whatever the challenges we face, we remain guided by the Charter’s intent to ensure that public safety in Berkeley reflects transparency, fairness, and our shared values. In 2025, community engagement remained central to our work. Board members and ODPA staff took part in community visioning sessions, Juneteenth and Hispanic Heritage Month events, discussions on sanctuary city policies, and public demonstrations of emerging safety technologies. We also began a new partnership with UC Berkeley’s Social Sector Solutions program to help us build a longer-term community engagement strategy, and continued strengthening our relationships with NACOLE and UC Berkeley Law’s Criminal Law and Justice Center. Our work was not without difficulty. The City’s hiring freeze left key ODPA investigative and administrative positions vacant for much of the year, straining an already lean office. The Board itself operated with as few as five of nine seats filled at times. We also encountered real limits on our ability to advise the Council and public on key issues before a final decision. Even amid these constraints, the Board continued to evaluate allegations of misconduct, issue findings and recommendations, and monitor trends in investigative outcomes. Beyond individual complaints, the Board reviewed a wide range of policies and emerging technologies affecting policing in Berkeley, including surveillance cameras and drones, military equipment reporting, mutual aid agreements, and vehicle pursuits. We also made significant progress on our longest-running institutional priority: the development of permanent regulations governing misconduct investigations and oversight procedures. As Chair, I want to extend my appreciation to my fellow Board members, past and present, for their dedication, especially through a year of reduced capacity; to the ODPA staff for their expertise, resilience, and partnership; and most importantly, to the Berkeley community for continuing to hold this system accountable. Oversight is not easy work, 1|Page Page 10 Page 7 of 73 but it is essential, and with your continued engagement, we will keep moving forward together. In partnership, Josh Cayetano, Chair of the Police Accountability Board 2|Page Page 11 Page 8 of 73 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Police Accountability Board (PAB) and Office of the Director of Police Accountability (ODPA) continued to advance Berkeley's commitment to transparent, independent, and community-centered police oversight throughout 2025. Guided by the authority established in the Berkeley City Charter, the PAB and ODPA worked to investigate allegations of police misconduct, review policies and practices affecting public safety, evaluate trends in police activity, and promote accountability through civilian oversight and public engagement. During 2025, the ODPA received 43 complaints submitted by 27 unique complainants. While the total number of complaints declined compared to the previous year, the increase in unique complainants suggests that concerns regarding police conduct were raised by a broader cross-section of the community. The PAB continued to evaluate allegations of misconduct, issue findings and recommendations, and provide an independent layer of oversight within Berkeley's police accountability framework. In addition to complaint investigations, the Board maintained its responsibility to review investigative outcomes, monitor trends, and assess areas where policy, training, or operational improvements may be warranted. The Board's work extended well beyond individual complaint investigations. Throughout the year, the PAB reviewed a wide range of policies, technologies, and emerging public safety issues affecting policing in Berkeley. These efforts included the review of surveillance technologies, controlled equipment reporting, mutual aid agreements, vehicle pursuit policies, public transparency issues, and developments in emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence-assisted report writing systems and unmanned aircraft systems. The Board also continued its long-term effort to advance permanent regulations governing misconduct investigations and oversight procedures, an initiative that remained a central priority throughout the year. The PAB's review of police operations was informed by extensive analysis of Berkeley Police Department stop data, use of force data, and other enforcement activities. The Board and ODPA continued to examine trends, patterns, and disparities within available data while emphasizing the importance of contextualized, evidence-based analysis. These reviews sought to provide policymakers and the public with meaningful information regarding police activity, accountability outcomes, and public safety practices, while acknowledging the limitations inherent in administrative datasets. Community engagement remained a core component of the Board's work. Board members and ODPA staff participated in community events, public meetings, outreach initiatives, and discussions involving topics such as police accountability, sanctuary city 3|Page Page 12 Page 9 of 73 policies, public safety technologies, and community trust. The Board also expanded partnerships with academic institutions, community organizations, and professional oversight organizations to strengthen public engagement and incorporate best practices into its work. A notable accomplishment was the establishment of a partnership with UC Berkeley's Social Sector Solutions program to evaluate existing outreach efforts and develop recommendations for a long-term community engagement strategy. Despite these accomplishments, the Board and ODPA faced significant challenges during
key investigative and administrative positions. These staffing limitations reduced organizational capacity and required existing staff to assume additional responsibilities to maintain core operations. Resource constraints affected the pace of investigations, policy reviews, community engagement efforts, and long-term projects, while also requiring difficult operational decisions regarding work prioritization and administrative case closures. The Board also encountered challenges associated with obtaining records, coordinating reviews of rapidly evolving public safety initiatives, and ensuring sufficient time to evaluate matters before decisions moved forward through other City processes. Looking ahead, the PAB and ODPA enter 2026 with a continued commitment to strengthening Berkeley's police accountability system. Key priorities include finalizing and implementing permanent regulations governing complaint investigations, expanding public awareness and community engagement efforts, addressing operational challenges that affect oversight functions, and continuing policy reviews related to policing practices, emerging technologies, and accountability mechanisms. Through these efforts, the Board and ODPA will continue working to promote transparency, accountability, procedural fairness, and public trust while ensuring that policing in Berkeley remains subject to meaningful civilian oversight. The activities described throughout this report reflect the ongoing effort to balance effective public safety services with transparency, accountability, and community confidence. Together, the PAB and ODPA remain committed to fulfilling their Charter responsibilities and supporting a police accountability system that is responsive to both community concerns and the evolving challenges facing public safety oversight. 4|Page Page 13 Page 10 of 73 ANALYSIS OF COMPLAINTS AND DISPOSITIONS (Required by Charter Section 125(16)(B)(1)(i) - 125(16)(B)(1)(ii)) In 2025, ODPA received a total of 43 complaints, submitted by 27 unique complainants. This represents an 18.9% decrease in total complaints compared to 2024, during which 53 complaints were received. Despite the decline in overall complaint volume, the number of unique complainants increased from 19 to 27, indicating that complaints were submitted by a broader group of community members than in the prior year. Following intake, each complaint undergoes an initial screening process during which the complainant's allegations are reviewed to determine whether they establish a prima facie basis for investigation. In other words, the Director assesses whether the facts alleged, if true, would constitute misconduct or a violation of law, policy, or procedure. As such, the total of 378 allegations reported here reflect those that were received by the ODPA but not necessarily investigated. It is common for complainants to initially select or assert multiple allegations; however, only a subset typically meets the prima facie threshold based on the facts described. Of the 378 allegations received, only 230 met the prima facie standard. Figure 1. Overview of Complaints Received in 2025 5|Page Page 14 Page 11 of 73 The most common of the 230 allegations asserted were Improper or Inadequate Investigation (55 allegations, 23.9%), Discourtesy (44 allegations, 19.1%), and both Discrimination and Improper Search (29 allegations each, 12.6%). Additional allegations involved Harassment, Improper Detention, and Improper Police Procedures, reflecting the broad range of concerns raised through the complaint process. Not all allegations proceed to investigation due to staff’s determination of whether prima facie misconduct has been alleged; however, the allegations show the nature of the concerns raised by complainants. Figure 2. Distribution of Allegation Made in 2025 Cases investigated in 2025 included both newly received complaints and those carried over from the prior year for a total of 31 closed cases. Seven cases received in 2024 were closed during 2025, contributing to overall case resolution numbers. At the same time, 19 cases initiated in 2025 remained open at the close of the year, reflecting ongoing investigative work and standard processing timelines. As a result, annual closure figures reflect a combination of cases initiated in both the current and prior reporting periods, rather than aligning exactly with complaints received within the same calendar year. INVESTIGATIVE OUTCOMES This section examines investigative outcomes of complaints closed during the reporting period. Investigative findings reflect the outcome of the Board's review process. The following findings categories are used to classify the disposition of each allegation following investigation. A “sustained” finding indicates that the alleged conduct occurred and was not justified. A “not sustained” finding means that the available evidence was insufficient to prove or disprove the allegation. An “unfounded” finding indicates that the alleged 6|Page Page 15 Page 12 of 73 conduct did not occur. A finding of “exonerated” means that the conduct occurred but was lawful, justified, and within policy. Of the 69 allegations investigated by the ODPA and presented to the PAB in 2025, 13 (18.8%) were sustained, 14 (20.3%) were not sustained, 34 (49.3%) were unfounded, and 7 (10.1%) were exonerated. The PAB also reviewed one allegation for which it determined that insufficient information was available to reach a dispositive finding. The remaining allegations handled in 2025 were administratively closed before an investigation was conducted. Figure 3. Distribution of Investigative Findings, 2025 ADMINISTRATIVE CLOSURES Administrative closures occur when a complaint is closed before investigative findings are made for procedural or jurisdictional reasons, such as the absence of a prima facie allegation of misconduct, withdrawal by the complainant, inability to contact or obtain cooperation from the complainant, mootness, or other circumstances that prevent further investigation. 7|Page Page 16 Page 13 of 73 ODPA staff presents each complaint it recommends for administrative closure to the PAB for approval. During the reporting period, the PAB administratively closed 22 cases filed by 13 unique complainants. One complainant was associated with 10 of the 22 administratively closed cases (45.5%), while the remaining 12 cases (54.5%) were submitted by 12 different complainants. The overall share of cases resolved through administrative closure remained largely unchanged from the prior year. In 2024, 33 of 46 closed cases (71.7%) were administratively closed, compared to 22 of 31 closed cases (71.0%) in 2025. While the proportion of administratively closed cases was similar across both years, the underlying distribution differed considerably. In 2024, a single complainant accounted for 29 of the 33 administratively closed cases (87.9%), whereas in 2025 the largest single complainant accounted for 10 of 22 administratively closed cases (45.5%). Administrative closures occurred for a variety of procedural, administrative, and case- specific reasons that prevented the complaints from proceeding through the full investigative process. The most common reason for administrative closure in 2025 was staffing constraints associated with the City's hiring freeze, which resulted in 8 cases (36.4%) being administratively closed. An additional 6 cases (27.3%) were administratively closed because the complaints did not allege prima facie misconduct or were determined to be frivolous or retaliatory. In 3 cases (13.6%), the complainant could not be reached despite follow-up attempts by the ODPA staff. Two cases (9.1%) were administratively closed after the complainant voluntarily withdrew from their complaint process. Each of the remaining three administrative closures occurred for a unique reason. These included a complaint filed after the Charter's 180-day filing deadline, a complaint resolved through other means, and a complaint rendered moot following a Berkeley Police Department policy change that addressed the concern raised by the complainant. 8|Page Page 17 Page 14 of 73 Figure 4. Reasons for Administrative Closure of Complaints, 2025 AGREEMENT RATE ANALYSIS Agreement rates provide insight into the extent to which the PAB, Chief of Police, and City Manager reach similar conclusions regarding allegations of misconduct. After the PAB issues findings on a complaint, those findings are forwarded to the Chief of Police, who issues a tentative decision. When the Chief's findings on an allegation differ from those of the PAB, the Director may appeal the matter to the City Manager for a final determination. If no appeal is filed, the Chief's tentative findings become final. If an appeal is filed, the City Manager's determination is final. In 2025, the PAB reviewed 69 allegations across nine complaints. The PAB and Chief reached the same conclusion on 19 allegations, resulting in an agreement rate of 27.5 percent. Unfounded was the most common shared disposition, accounting for 16 of the 19 agreements (84.2 percent). 9|Page Page 18 Page 15 of 73 Figure 5. PAB-Chief of Police Agreement Rates by Dispositions, 2025 Given the PAB's comprehensive review process, the absence of agreement on any sustained findings is notable. Before issuing sustained findings, the Board conducts a thorough, independent assessment of all available evidence, including investigative reports, complainant, officer, and witness interviews, body-worn camera footage, and studies applicable laws, policies, and procedures. Despite this rigorous review, the Chief of Police did not concur with any of the PAB's sustained findings during the reporting period. This divergence is particularly notable when considered alongside BPD's internal affairs data, which shows that 14 of 16 internally generated complaints resulted in sustained findings. These differing outcomes underscore the importance of continued examination of how allegations are evaluated across oversight and internal accountability processes. Allegations for which the PAB and Chief reached different conclusions were eligible for appeal to the City Manager, who serves as the final decision- maker in the complaint process. During 2025, the ODPA appealed 20 allegations arising from four cases and the City Manager issued final determinations on five allegations. 1 Of those five allegations, the City Manager concurred with the PAB in one instance (20.0 percent) and with the Chief in four instances (80.0 percent). BPD COMPLAINT DATA The BPD accepts and investigates complaints against both sworn and unsworn department personnel through its Internal Affairs process. Complaints investigated by 1 The remaining 15 were not reviewed due to time constraints. 10 | P a g e Page 19 Page 16 of 73 the ODPA (which, under the Charter, are limited to sworn officers only) are also investigated by BPD's Internal Affairs Bureau as part of the City's dual-investigation model. However, complaints filed directly with BPD are investigated by the Department internally and are not forwarded to the ODPA for independent review or investigation. In 2025, the Berkeley Police Department received a total of 58 personnel complaints, including 42 external complaints and 16 internal complaints. Of the 42 external complaints, 33 were received through the ODPA; however, these figures are not additive due to overlap from dual-filed complaints. Of the total complaints received, sustained findings were made in 15 of them, including 14 internal complaints and 1 external complaint. A total of 18 complaints were administratively closed, and 17 complaints remained active at the time of reporting. Data from Internal Affairs indicate that sustained findings were concentrated almost exclusively among internally generated complaints. Of the 16 internal complaints it received in 2025, 14 resulted in at least one sustained finding, for an internal complaint sustainment rate of 87.5 percent. By comparison, only one of the Department's 42 external complaints resulted in a sustained finding. These complaints involved a total of 261 individual allegations. The most common allegation categories were Improper Procedure (54), Inadequate Investigation (50), Improper Stop/Search/Seizure/Arrest (38), Discourtesy (33), and Discrimination (31). Of the total allegations reviewed, 20 were sustained, 7 were not sustained, 12 were exonerated, and 35 were unfounded. Additionally, 70 allegations were administratively closed and 117 remained active at the time of reporting. Improper Procedure accounted for the largest number of sustained allegations (12), followed by Inadequate Investigation (5). At the allegation level, BPD sustained 20 of 261 allegations reviewed (7.7 percent). Because complaints filed directly with BPD are not forwarded to the ODPA for independent review, the PAB and ODPA do not have access to information about internally generated complaints investigated exclusively by the Internal Affairs Bureau. As a result, the PAB and ODPA are unable to draw conclusions regarding the factors contributing to the higher rate of sustained findings in those complaints. Without access to the underlying allegations, investigative materials, or information regarding the nature and circumstances of internal complaints, it is not possible to meaningfully compare those matters to complaints received through the PAB and other members of the public. Additional information regarding the characteristics of internal complaints would be necessary to assess whether differences in sustainment rates reflect variations in complaint type, evidentiary considerations, reporting practices, or other factors. 11 | P a g e Page 20 Page 17 of 73 Figure 6. Internal Affairs Bureau Statistics 12 | P a g e Page 21 Page 18 of 73 PAB’S POLICY WORK IN 2025 (Required by Charter Section 125(16)(B)(1)(iii)) This section provides an overview of the Police Accountability Board’s policy work in 2025, pursuant to Section 125(16)(b)(1)(iii) of the Berkeley City Charter, which requires reporting on policy complaints undertaken by the Board. While policy complaints constitute one basis for initiating such work, a Board’s policy review may also be undertaken on the Board’s own initiative or in response to requests or identified needs of the City. This section summarizes the policy reviews received and the Board’s consideration of the issues and topics that arose over the course of the year. OVERSIGHT OF POLICIES AND PRACTICES While the PAB is often associated with reviewing misconduct complaints, the majority of its work is policy-focused. The PAB receives policy matters through several pathways including request from members of the public through policy complaints, referral from Board members or ODPA staff, direction from the City Council, and reviews required by ordinance, such as those involving surveillance technology and police equipment. The Berkeley City Charter grants the PAB broad authority to review the policies, practices, and 13 | P a g e Page 22 Page 19 of 73 procedures of the BPD as appropriate. Following a review, the PAB may issue findings and recommendations to the BPD and City Council. In 2025, the PAB continued to evaluate police policies and practices, along with emerging public safety issues through policy reviews, annual reporting requirements, formal recommendations, and examination of matters affecting police accountability and public trust. These efforts extended beyond the Board's review of individual complaints and reflected its broader responsibility to assess the policies, technologies, and governance frameworks that shape policing in Berkeley. The PAB also continued its efforts to advance regulations governing the investigation of misconduct by sworn members of BPD, which were originally submitted in 2022 and remained subject to the meet-and- confer process at year-end. One area of the PAB’s policy work focused on agreements and cooperative arrangements involving external agencies. As part of its annual review of BPD mutual aid agreements, the PAB examined how these partnerships may affect police operations, information sharing, public transparency, and civilian oversight. Through this process, the PAB sought to ensure that interagency agreements remained consistent with community expectations, City policies, and Berkeley's accountability framework. Particular attention was given to Mutual Aid Agreement 3.1 between BPD and the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). The PAB evaluated the agreement through the lens of accountability, public trust, and Berkeley's sanctuary city policies. Board members expressed concern that the agreement could permit information sharing that, while authorized under its terms, may not align with the intent of local policies regarding involvement in federal immigration enforcement. The PAB also noted that changes in federal immigration priorities could increase the likelihood that information shared for criminal investigative purposes may ultimately contribute to civil immigration enforcement activities. Following its deliberations, the PAB formally recommended that the agreement be terminated and encouraged the City Council and City Manager to consider whether additional policy guidance or legislative action may be necessary to ensure Berkeley's sanctuary city objectives are fully reflected in departmental practices and interagency agreements. The PAB's policy oversight also extended to broader policing practices and accountability measures. The PAB reviewed BPD Policy 307, Vehicle Pursuits, and provided recommendations concerning the Department's pursuit practices. This review examined the balance between public safety, officer safety, and accountability considerations associated with vehicle pursuits, as well as the effectiveness of existing safeguards governing pursuit decisions. Through this review, the PAB sought to ensure that pursuit 14 | P a g e Page 23 Page 20 of 73 policies appropriately balanced public safety needs with the risks posed to officers, community members, and individuals being pursued. The PAB also devoted considerable attention to BPD's Annual Controlled Equipment Report and implementation of the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance. In reviewing the Department's reporting on the acquisition, use, and deployment of controlled equipment, the PAB identified concerns regarding compliance with local reporting requirements and recommended that those issues be addressed prior to approval of the report. These discussions reflected the PAB's ongoing commitment to ensuring that equipment with heightened public safety implications remains subject to meaningful oversight and public accountability. In conjunction with this work, the PAB reviewed proposed amendments to the Police Equipment and Community Safety Ordinance. Throughout these discussions, the PAB considered how to balance administrative efficiency with the preservation of meaningful civilian oversight and public transparency. The PAB evaluated the potential impact of the proposed amendments on existing accountability mechanisms and reporting requirements. Ultimately, following input from both the PAB and BPD, the City Council adopted revisions that preserved the ordinance while reducing duplicative reporting requirements between the City's controlled equipment reporting process and California's state-mandated military equipment reporting framework. In 2025, the PAB continued its oversight of surveillance technologies and related governance frameworks. During the year, members reviewed surveillance technology proposals, annual surveillance reports, and issues involving privacy, data governance, transparency, and public access to information. These discussions included fixed surveillance camera technologies, associated use policies, and proposals to expand surveillance capabilities, including the proposed deployment of Flock Safety Condor cameras. Following its review, the PAB provided recommendations to the City Council regarding surveillance governance, reporting requirements, and accountability measures intended to ensure continued public oversight of surveillance technologies. The PAB sent three 15 | P a g e Page 24 Page 21 of 73 letters to the Council on July 17, 2025 2, September 4, 2025 3, and November 10, 20254 highlighting the privacy risks posed by the City’s proposed contract with Flock Safety. In the July 17, 2025 letter, the PAB brought early attention to Flock Safety’s reported evasion of restrictions on sharing data with federal immigration authorities and recommended both contractual and technical safeguards prohibiting the sharing of the City’s data in violation of state and local law. Over the next few months, Flock Safety halted its pilot program with ICE and identified critical flaws in its software that had enabled inadvertent data sharing with unauthorized entities. In the September 4, 2025 letter, the Board requested that the City delay approval of the Flock Safety contract as several jurisdictions around the country paused or canceled their contracts following revelations of data breaches. Then, in its November 10, 2025 letter, the Board brought attention to an internal BPD audit that Berkeley’s own data was searched for unauthorized immigration enforcement purposes and called for additional remedial measures. Throughout these discussions, the PAB emphasized the importance of carefully evaluating both the public safety benefits and potential civil liberties implications associated with surveillance technologies. Additionally, the PAB supported the installation of fixed camera systems at the Berkeley Animal Shelter and Berkeley Jail, while broader proposals involving expanded camera deployments and other surveillance technologies for patrol operations remained under consideration and carried forward into 2026. Closely related to these discussions were broader questions regarding public access to information and transparency in law enforcement operations. During the year, the PAB considered BPD's transition to encrypted radio communications and expressed concerns regarding the potential impact of full radio encryption on public transparency, media access, and civilian oversight. While BPD ultimately proceeded with encryption, the PAB's discussions reflected the broader tension between operational and officer safety 2 July 17, 2025 – PAB Letter to City Council Responding to BPD's Surveillance Acquisition Report and External Fixed Surveillance Cameras Use Policy (Flock Safety Condor Video Cameras): https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-07- 17%20Letter%20to%20Council%20re%20Surveillance%20Camera%20Policy%20- %20Final%20%283%29.pdf 3 September 4, 2025 – PAB Letter to City Council Requesting Delay of Flock Safety Contract Approval Pending Further Review: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-09- 04%20Letter%20to%20Council_Reconsideration%20of%20Flock_Final.pdf 4 November 10, 2025 – PAB Letter to City Council Regarding the Annual Surveillance Technology Report: https://berkeleyca.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2025-11- 10%20Letter%20re%20Annual%20Surveillance%20Technology%20Report_Final%20%28wAttachments%2 9.pdf 16 | P a g e Page 25 Page 22 of 73 considerations and the public's ability to monitor police activity and remain informed about law enforcement operations. In addition to reviewing existing technologies, the PAB examined emerging developments that may influence future policing practices. Anticipating future discussions regarding Unmanned Aircraft Systems and Drone as First Responder programs, the PAB voted to continue its collaboration with the UC Berkeley School of Law Criminal Law and Justice Center to support independent research and analysis of these technologies. The PAB also monitored developments related to artificial intelligence-assisted report writing systems and requested updates regarding their implementation and use. These efforts reflected a proactive approach to understanding how technological advancements may affect police operations, accountability systems, and community trust. The PAB also presented its review of Fair and Impartial Policing initiatives and associated data reporting, emphasizing the importance of transparency, data-informed decision- making, and ongoing evaluation of policing outcomes. Through its review of available data and reporting practices, the PAB sought to ensure that accountability efforts remain informed by objective analysis and that both policymakers and the public have access to meaningful information regarding policing practices and outcomes. Beyond these major initiatives, the PAB considered a variety of additional policies, operational practices, and accountability issues identified through annual reports, public input, policy discussions, and its broader oversight responsibilities. These conversations addressed topics related to transparency, procedural justice, community trust, and organizational accountability while helping the PAB identify emerging issues warranting future examination. Across all these efforts, the PAB emphasized informed decision-making, meaningful public engagement, and independent civilian oversight. Collectively, these activities reflected the PAB's commitment to ensuring that policing policies, practices, technologies, and accountability systems remain subject to ongoing public review and evaluation. Many of the issues considered during 2025 remained active at year-end and are expected to continue as areas of focus in future years. POLICY COMPLAINTS Members of the public may request that the PAB review a BPD policy, practice, or procedure by submitting a policy complaint to the ODPA. After an initial staff review, policy complaints are presented to the PAB for consideration within 30 days of filing, or at the next regular meeting if that timeframe has passed. The PAB conducts a dedicated public hearing on each complaint, during which the complainant, members of the public, 17 | P a g e Page 26 Page 23 of 73 and BPD may provide input. By majority vote, the PAB may accept the policy complaint for further review. Once accepted, the PAB determines the appropriate review process, which may include consideration by the full Board, assignment to staff or a Board member for research, or referral to a subcommittee. Upon completion of its review, the PAB may recommend that BPD adopt a new policy, revise an existing policy, or take no action. Policy complaints are formally closed following a majority vote of the PAB. In 2025, the PAB received seven policy complaints from members of the public. Each complaint was evaluated to determine whether it raised issues appropriate for formal policy review and within the Board’s jurisdiction. Of these submissions, three were accepted for further review and four were not accepted. One policy review was completed during 2025 and three remained pending at the end of the calendar year. These complaints, whether accepted or not, contributed to the Board’s broader understanding of emerging issues and informed its ongoing policy oversight work. Figure 7. Policy Review Requests, 2025 Six policy review matters remained open at the close of 2025, reflecting a mix of reviews initiated between 2023 and 2025 as well as topics identified for potential review that were subsequently suspended. These matters address specific policy areas, including use of force practices, medical and mental health response during law enforcement interactions, and administrative procedures such as record retention and enforcement practices. Several topics were suspended and remain pending reassessment, including 18 | P a g e Page 27 Page 24 of 73 involuntary injections and medical care during encounters, use of force during arrest, and the role of the Specialized Care Unit. Progress on these matters was slowed by fluctuations in Board membership and staffing changes, which impacted review timelines and required a shift in available capacity toward more time-sensitive and resource-intensive work. As a result, certain reviews were deferred. The outstanding items remain under active consideration for future work as capacity allows, and their status reflects prioritization decisions rather than a lack of significance. All outstanding and suspended items are anticipated to be reconsidered as part of the FY 2026–27 workplan and will be subject to reassessment as membership increases and staffing stabilizes. POLICY SUBCOMMITTEES A key objective of the Board in 2025 was to streamline its subcommittee structure to enhance manageability, clarity, and effectiveness. This effort reduced reliance on ad hoc subcommittees and consolidated work within a smaller number of standing subcommittees with clearly defined scopes and responsibilities. The Board concluded 2025 with six subcommittees, a reduction from twelve in 2024. While changes in membership affected the continuity of some subcommittee work, unaffected subcommittees continued to make substantial progress. This streamlined structure supports greater continuity, improved coordination, and a more efficient approach to advancing the Board’s policy and oversight functions. Summaries of the subcommittees established by the Board and their respective purposes are provided below. 19 | P a g e Page 28 Page 25 of 73 Table 1. Active PAB Subcommittees as of December 31, 2025 Table 2. Subcommittees Concluded Prior to December 31, 2025 The Budget & Metrics and Operations & Processes Subcommittees were consolidated into a single subcommittee (Metrics and Operations). All remaining subcommittees were dissolved upon completing their work. 20 | P a g e Page 29 Page 26 of 73 BPD TRENDS AND PATTERNS IN VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN STOPS, AND OTHER ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES (Required by Charter Section 125(16)(B)(5)) Stop data refers to the information collected during officer-initiated encounters, including vehicle and pedestrian stops, citations, arrests, searches, and related enforcement activities by BPD. As required under Section 125(16)(b)(5) of the Berkeley City Charter, the following section presents an overview of trends and patterns in these activities. This data provides a standardized record of when, where, and why stops occur, as well as the actions taken and outcomes of those interactions, and can help illustrate general patterns in policing activity over time. Its strengths include the use of consistent reporting categories that support trend analysis, comparisons across time periods, and examination of specific enforcement actions, such as searches or arrests, while also enhancing transparency by making aggregate patterns more visible. At the same time, stop data has important limitations. It is based on officer-reported information, including perceived demographic characteristics rather than self-identified data, which may introduce inaccuracies. It captures only recorded stops and does not reflect unreported interactions or broader community-police dynamics. The data also does not provide full context for each encounter, such as the circumstances or decision- making factors that may influence an officer’s actions. Accordingly, while stop data can illuminate important patterns and disparities, it should be interpreted with appropriate caution and in conjunction with qualitative context and other sources of information. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS AND ANALYTICAL LIMITATIONS Data Set Limitations: The analyses contained within this section were conducted using stop data gathered by the Berkeley Police Department to meet its reporting requirements under the California RIPA (Racial Profiling and Identity Act). The dataset reflects individual stop records reported during 2025, meaning that a single police encounter involving multiple individuals may generate multiple stop records. Unless otherwise noted, percentages were calculated using aggregate stop-level records contained within the 2025 dataset. The dataset utilized for this analysis was downloaded on January 9, 2026. Because BPD periodically updates, corrects, or supplements stop data, slight variations may exist between the figures presented in this report and future versions of the dataset. Certain variables within the dataset, including discretionary search classifications, contraband recovery fields, housing-status indicators, and behavioral health-related contact categories, contain operational and reporting limitations that may affect 21 | P a g e Page 30 Page 27 of 73 analytical precision. Accordingly, several percentage-based analyses should be interpreted as approximate distributions intended to illustrate general trends within the dataset. Additionally, some demographic categories reflected comparatively small sample sizes within the 2025 dataset. Descriptive statistics for these groups are included for completeness and transparency; however, caution should be exercised when interpreting comparative disparities involving smaller demographic categories because limited sample sizes may produce unstable percentage distributions and reduce statistical reliability. Analytical Limitations: Several analyses included within this report, particularly those involving population-based benchmarking, temporal demographic distributions, stop- type comparisons, housing-status comparisons, and post-stop search-rate analysis, are intended to provide descriptive and contextual assessments grounded in accepted policing research methodologies rather than establish definitive causal conclusions regarding officer intent or discriminatory conduct. Population-based benchmarking is an important metric to identify disparities that warrant further examination. However, population-based benchmarking has important methodological limitations. Specifically, residential population demographics do not necessarily reflect the population that is present within Berkeley, engaged in activities that may result in police contact, or otherwise exposed to enforcement activity during a given period. Berkeley functions as a regional employment, educational, commercial, healthcare, and transportation hub with substantial commuter and visitor activity. As a result, the population exposed to police contact extends beyond Berkeley residents and may differ from the city's residential demographics. For this reason, population-based benchmarking is generally considered a preliminary indicator rather than a standalone test of bias. Additional analyses are necessary to assess whether those disparities persist when accounting for factors such as residency status, stop circumstances, geographic location, time of day, enforcement activity, search rates, search outcomes, and other contextual variables. Outcome disparity analyses such as search-rate and search-yield testing are often considered analytically stronger than population-based comparisons because they evaluate police decision-making and outcomes among individuals already subjected to police contact. At the same time, these measures also have important limitations. Search decisions and search outcomes may be influenced by differing stop circumstances, legal authorities for the search, probation or parole status, calls for service, officer observations, and other operational conditions associated with individual encounters. 22 | P a g e Page 31 Page 28 of 73 In sum each analytical method has its own limitations but provides the Council with helpful information to further investigate the root causes for any disparities if so desired. STOP DATA OVERVIEW In 2025, BPD conducted a total of 4,540 stops, including 3,095 vehicle stops, 1,371 pedestrian stops, and 74 bicycle stops. Approximately 60.6% of these encounters were discretionary in nature, while the remaining 39.4% were associated with calls for service, information-based stops, or both. Of all stops conducted, 754 resulted in at least one arrest, 1,438 led to citations, and 1,747 concluded with warnings. Searches were conducted in approximately 11.2% of all stops, totaling 507 searches. Of the individuals stopped, 49.5% were identified as non-Berkeley residents, 45.3% were Berkeley residents, and 5.2% had residency status that was unknown or not recorded. 5 Analysis of discretionary search outcomes indicated an estimated contraband or evidence recovery rate of approximately 67.6%; however, search classification and evidence fields within the dataset contain methodological limitations that may affect precision. The dataset also documented approximately 60 firearm-related contraband or evidence recoveries during stop activity. Behavioral and mental health-related encounters represented a meaningful portion of police-community interactions during the reporting period, with approximately 266 contacts associated with welfare checks, psychiatric detention activity, or behavioral health-related response incidents. The Board took special notice of the stops of individuals perceived to be unhoused. In 2025, BPD stopped individuals perceived to be housed 937 times or 20.6% of all stops. Recent data suggest that the unhoused population constitutes 0.72% of Berkeley’s population (880 of 121,911). The Board recommends that the Council request additional information from the City Manager for the reasons for this disparity and further investigate if necessary. 5 Population estimates referenced throughout this section were derived from the January 2026 U.S. Census Bureau American Community Survey (ACS) 5-Year Estimates for the City of Berkeley. Stop data was derived from 2025 RIPA stop records reported by BPD and reviewed by ODPA. 23 | P a g e Page 32 Page 29 of 73 Figure 8. Overview of BPD Stop Data, 2025 24 | P a g e Page 33 Page 30 of 73 DEMOGRAPHICS OF INDIVIDUALS BEING STOPPED AND BIAS ASSESSMENT Consistent with California RIPA reporting requirements, demographic variables reflected throughout this section are based on officer-perceived demographic classifications recorded at the time of the stop. The purpose of the following analysis is twofold: