UCLA PD Zoom

Back on Nov. 4, the UCLA PD held a state-mandated Zoom with regard to its budget request for certain weapons and supplies considered "military." I asked Claude to provide summary notes. Below is the result, somewhat modified by yours truly:

UCLA PD AB 481 community meeting: summary

Format. This was a one-hour Zoom meeting required by AB 481. Its purpose was public comment and questions on UCLA PD’s annual military equipment report for calendar year 2025. Captain Scott Scheffler ran the meeting. He said the next step is a UC Regents meeting, where the Regents will review AB 481 reports from all ten UC campuses. Other department officials also answered questions. Nearly every speaker from the public was a UCLA faculty member, lecturer or staff member.

Main concerns raised by participants

• 40mm launchers. A faculty member presented a petition calling for an immediate ban on buying and deploying 40mm projectile weapons. He said it has more than 400 signatures, including over 200 UCLA faculty and staff. He cited:
  • a UCLA undergraduate hit in the chest by UCLA PD on June 10, 2024, who was hospitalized for two days
  • a student hit by LAPD in June 2025 with a skull fracture
  • a federal injunction restricting LAPD’s use of these weapons for crowd control and banning aiming at the chest or face
  He argued that UCLA PD now holds itself to a lower safety standard than LAPD and that the weapons are a liability.
• Why a campus needs these weapons at all. Several faculty asked why a campus devoted to learning needs “military-grade” weapons that LAPD has been restricted from using. One asked for real examples where the weapons were needed.
• Use at protests. Participants who said they witnessed events disputed the department’s account:
  • On June 10, 2024, they said pepper balls were used to disperse a crowd. Two faculty members reportedly had pepper balls fired at their feet.
  • An officer carried a 40mm launcher at a peaceful movie screening in Bruin Plaza on April 30, 2025.
  • Launchers were carried at the Chancellor’s inauguration on June 5, 2025.
  • A police motorcycle drove onto a crowded pedestrian path at night, which they called dangerous intimidation.
  One participant said the gap between what they saw and what the department described explains the lack of trust.
• Effect on free speech. A professor said her department exists because of a student hunger strike. She said she had never seen a violent protest at UCLA in 25 years. She argued that visible military-style weapons intimidate protesters, escalate situations and chill free speech, contrary to the university’s mission.
• Budget. A union representative asked how the department can justify more weapons spending while lecturer positions and services like childcare are being cut. A faculty member asked about $216,000 for two more drones, linked in the report to the LA28 Olympics, when the three drones already bought haven’t been installed yet.
• Numbers requested. One participant said the request (described as roughly 100 40mm rounds and nearly 1,000 pepper balls) suggests planned use against crowds, not individuals.
• Which force responds. A faculty member asked how it’s decided whether UCLA PD, LAPD or private security responds. She said she’d almost prefer LAPD, given its stricter limits.
• Off-topic requests. Questions about cooperation with ICE were ruled outside the meeting’s scope. Several participants asked for a separate public meeting on that topic.

The department’s responses

• What the weapons are for. Officials described 40mm launchers and pepper balls as “less lethal,” not non-lethal. They are meant for people who are assaultive or life-threatening, where deadly force might otherwise be the only option. Use requires special training, approved target areas and distances, a medical assessment when possible, and a supervisory review afterward.
• Crowd control. The department repeatedly said it does not use and has no plans to use these tools for crowd control or against peaceful protesters. It said doing so would violate AB 48, a separate state law. Officers carry the tools at demonstrations in case one individual becomes violent. Carrying them doesn’t lower the legal threshold for using them. Use must be justified by a specific person’s conduct.
• June 10, 2024. Officials said they couldn’t discuss specific incidents. Asked directly, Captain Scheffler said the pepper balls fired that day were not used for crowd control. Participants disputed this. Separately, a participant noted the Regents report describes about 240 pepper balls fired during an incident with an “aggressive crowd,” none aimed at people.
• Examples of need. Officials gave several:
  • a non-compliant man with a metal pole throwing rocks near campus apartments, who dropped the pole after one 40mm round
  • an armed man who assaulted students on Bruin Walk and forced his way into a dorm
  • the 2016 Engineering 4 shooting
  • people throwing metal trash can lids off parking structures
  They also noted UCLA PD patrols university property across greater Los Angeles, not just the campus.
• LAPD comparison. Officials said the LAPD ruling limits when LAPD may use these weapons, not whether it may own them. They disputed the claim that UCLA PD’s standards are less safe. LAPD responds on campus under an MOU for certain serious crimes, such as homicides and some bomb threats. UCLA PD handles everything else.
• Who decides. On routine calls, individual officers decide within law and policy. At planned events, an incident commander sets force guidelines. Any officer may still respond to an immediate threat. Use-of-force incidents generally become criminal investigations that aren’t open to public review unless a case goes to court.
• More munitions. Munitions expire and are replaced. The department is also authorized for more launchers than it owns and wants matching ammunition for each. Rounds come in fixed package sizes.
• Drones. The drones are for a “drone as first responder” program: a drone reaches a call before officers to give real-time information. That could sometimes mean a smaller police response or none. Officials said it is not general surveillance or routine patrol. Five drones would cover about 95% of priority calls, and multiple drones are needed because batteries run down. They expect the drones to help with Olympic athletes’ village security.
• Budget. Captain Scheffler said he isn’t a budget expert. He said most costs come from existing department funds, and he couldn’t speak to university-wide budget decisions.
• Free speech. He said protecting First Amendment rights is a core function. He said most of the hundreds of campus gatherings each year involve no police. Officers attend some protests partly to protect demonstrators from counter-protesters.

Process and follow-up

• Policies. Use of force, control devices and techniques, and military equipment are each covered by a policy posted online. A link was shared in the chat.
• Complaints. Complaints about specific officers go through the misconduct complaint process. AB 481 concerns can be sent year-round to info@ucpd.ucla.edu (as given in the meeting). They will be recorded in next year’s AB 481 report.
• Petition and comments. Department leadership said it would discuss the comments and read the petition. Asked whether the request will simply be approved anyway, officials gave no direct answer.
• Contact. The second official offered his email for one-on-one conversations, including about ICE.
• Unresolved. Some participants left saying their accounts of past incidents and the department’s descriptions remained far apart.