San Francisco approved killer police robots. Will other California departments follow?

The San Francisco Police Department was given the authorization to use remote-controlled robots for potentially deadly force after a heated debate over civil liberties and warnings about the continued militarization of police.

One law enforcement expert said police robots using lethal force is a topic that’s been discussed for years among law enforcement and members of the justice system.

Ed Obayashi, a Plumas County sheriff’s deputy and an expert in use-of-force and in law enforcement ethics training in California, said the technology is nowhere near the point someone could create a walking robot that could quickly advance to take down a dangerous suspect. But it will get there.

“We’re going to use what we need to use,” Obayashi said. “It’s a delivery platform; it’s all it is.”

That sentiment was echoed by San Francisco police officials and the city’s Board of Supervisors tasked with making the call, voting 8-3 to authorize such tactics. Debate at Tuesday’s hearing ran more than two hours with members on both sides accusing the other of reckless fear-mongering.

The explicit authorization was required after a new California law went into effect requiring police and sheriff’s departments to inventory military-grade equipment and seek approval for their use.

Critics are concerned that other cities in the state, including Sacramento, could consider asking leaders for the same authorization. So far, only Oakland has had a similar proposal, which it shelved after public backlash.

Elizabeth E. Joh, a UC Davis School of Law professor and an expert in policing, privacy, and technology, said those critics are right to be concerned.

It’s been nearly two and a half years since Minneapolis police murdered George Floyd and nationwide protests marched against excessive force and racism. Joh said San Francisco’s decision could lead many to feel law enforcement priorities are to increase the uses of deadly force rather than strengthening trust between the public and police.

It also could lead other police agencies in California to make the same request.

“It does send a message to other agencies that this is a legitimate policy to have,” Joh said. “And I think that raises legitimate reasons for the public to be concerned.”

She asked what other situations would police seek permission to use lethal force robots? While the robotic technology in the hands of police today relies on slow-moving track treads, Joh wondered what will happen when law enforcement has the capability to use drones or four-legged robots to apply lethal force.

‘Not a easy discussion’

San Francisco Supervisor Connie Chan said she understood concerns over the use of force but that “according to state law, we are required to approve the use of these equipments. So here we are, and it’s definitely not a easy discussion.”

San Francisco police said the department does not have robots armed with lethal force options and does not plan to arm robots with guns. But the department could deploy robots equipped with explosive charges “to contact, incapacitate, or disorient violent, armed, or dangerous suspect” when lives are at stake, SFPD spokesperson Allison Maxie said in a statement.

The Sacramento Police Department has four robots that it deploys to assist SWAT teams and patrol officers during high-risk, tactical or other situations when lives are threatened. The department’s robots are not used to apply lethal force.

Sgt. Zach Eaton, a Police Department spokesman, said the agency continually evaluates emerging technology, tactics and the best law enforcement practices through research, training and the department’s Development Division. But they don’t plan on using deadly force robots.

“The department does not train in using force through robots,” Eaton said, “nor is it planning on seeking authorization to use lethal force through robots.”

San Francisco supervisors amended the proposal to specify that officers could use robots only after using alternative force or de-escalation tactics, or concluding they would not be able to subdue the suspect through those alternative means. Only a limited number of high-ranking officers could authorize use of robots as a deadly force option.

“The use of robots in potentially deadly force situations is a last resort option,” San Francisco Police Chief William Scott said in a written statement. “We live in a time when unthinkable mass violence is becoming more commonplace. We need the option to be able to save lives in the event we have that type of tragedy in our city.”

In 2016, Dallas police used a remote-controlled robot to deliver a bomb that killed a sniper after negotiations stalled. Officers could not approach the sniper, who had already killed five officers in an ambush, without putting themselves in danger. That was the first time a police robot was used in such a manner.

Obayashi said that’s likely how police robots will be used in those extreme circumstances. The robots police have now are clunky, slow-moving machines that use track treads. They’re routinely used to inspect suspected explosive devices or open a door.

“This isn’t some science-fiction movie. We’re not talking about ‘The Terminator,’” Obayashi said referring to the 1984 Arnold Schwarzenegger film about an assassin robot sent from the future. “They don’t have legs. They’re not ‘Quick Draw McGraw.’”

He said law enforcement officials who operate these remote-controlled robots will continue to fall under the same use-of-force standards; facing consequences if deadly force was not justified under the law.

Robots used to help Sacramento officers

Assembly Bill 481, approved in 2021, requires law enforcement agencies to seek community feedback on the acquisition, funding and use of military equipment. It is aimed at giving the public a forum and voice in the acquisition and use of military-grade weapons that have a negative effect on communities, according to the legislation.

A federal program has long dispensed grenade launchers, camouflage uniforms, bayonets, armored vehicles and other surplus military equipment to help local law enforcement.

In 2017, then-President Donald Trump signed an order reviving the Pentagon program after his predecessor, Barack Obama, curtailed it in 2015, triggered in part by outrage over the use of military gear during protests in Ferguson, Missouri, after the shooting death of Michael Brown.

San Francisco police said that no robots were obtained from military surplus, but some were purchased with federal grant money.

Sacramento police’s military equipment use report lists its robots and its unmanned aircraft systems (aerial drones) as military equipment that falls under AB481. The Sacramento police robots were used six times from Dec. 14, 2021, through April 30, including once by the department’s Explosive Ordinance Disposal team.

The police robots, which are remote-controlled, were used in Sacramento to open doors to clear buildings, provide reconnaissance before officers entered a building, and deliver items such as a cellphone to communicate with a suspect during crisis negotiations, according to the report.

Eaton, the Sacramento police spokesman, said department policy dictates they cannot use its aerial drones to apply “any force” on a suspect.

Obayashi spoke about the potential of police robots using deadly force in a panel discussion at the 2018 California State Bar Convention at the University of Southern California. He said police robots in use now can’t climb stairs and are too bulky and cumbersome to keep up with a suspect in a use-of-force situation.

“But I’ll tell you,” Obayashi said, “those days are coming.”

While there is artificial intelligence being used for robots to function on their own, Obayashi doesn’t believe law enforcement will ever allow a robot to make lethal force decisions without human control. He said robots could be used to confront a dangerous person without putting officers at risk and reducing the need to respond with deadly force.

“We’re not looking for better ways to kill,” Obayashi said. “We’re looking for ways not to kill.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.