.

UPDATE: Police Acquisition of Armored Vehicles, Costly Crash Under Scrutiny

Banning police photo of four MRAPs, Sept. 16, 2013.
Banning police photo of four MRAPs, Sept. 16, 2013.
For an update to this report see Councilman Blasts PD's Acquisition of MRAP Vehicle, City Manager 'Not Happy'

The Banning Police Department's acquisition of a surplus Mine Resistant Ambush Protected (MRAP) vehicle and their subsequent crash of the heavily-armored truck in Arizona took place three months ago, but an acting police commander and the city's spokesman said Thursday they could not comment because a personnel investigation is still under way.

Mayor Debbie Franklin said Friday evening the city council was not consulted publicly about acquisition of the 18-ton armored vehicle before the Sept. 16 crash on Interstate 10 in Buckeye, west of Phoenix, which has resulted in a claim of more than $42,000 against the City of Banning.

City staff have yet to present a report to Banning's council, Franklin said in a phone interview.

Redlands police also acquired a similar armored vehicle without consulting their city council, a city spokesman confirmed to Patch on Monday.

"It has not been presented to council yet and we don't have an estimate for any retrofits," City of Redlands spokesman Carl Baker said in response to inquiries. "We are not allowing photos of it until it has been retrofit."

It remained unclear Dec. 16 whether police departments in West Covina and Gardena consulted their city councils before they accepted surplus MRAPs from the Department of Defense and made arrangements to convoy the armored vehicles with Banning PD and Redlands PD personnel from Fort Bliss in El Paso, Texas.

Given the incidents local police and deputies face from time to time, it's no surprise law enforcement agencies' tactical personnel nationwide are willing to accept free combat-ready MRAPs with roof-mounted machine gun turrets that cost the DoD in excess of $500,000 each.

But as the Department of Defense continues giving away hundreds of vehicles designed for "asymmetric warfare," the American Civil Liberties Union and others have criticized what they see as the increasing militarization of local law enforcement agencies, according to an Associated Press report published by the Military Times.

Banning's acquisition of its Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle and the crash were first reported by the Banning Informer, in September and November, respectively.

Records released to Patch last week, including police department emails, insurance claims and photos, reveal details of how Banning PD, Redlands PD, West Covina PD and Gardena PD came to possess their MRAPs, and how Banning PD's newest armored vehicle crashed on the westbound 10 in Arizona.

Banning police were exploring the possibility of acquiring a surplus armored vehicle earlier this year when Banning PD Lt. Phil Holder told Russ Gibson of Cal EMA:

"The Banning Police Department currently utilizes an older armored transport vehicle used in the past by a money transport company. The requested MRAP vehicle would enhance the safety of the department's tactical team when approaching critical incidents involving armed suspect(s)."

Holder's statement was included in a Law Enforcement Agency Armored Tactical Vehicle Request form signed by Banning chief of police Leonard Purvis on May 1, 2013.

Gibson is with the state Emergency Management Agency and helps coordinate with the Department of Defense 1033 Program, which permits the transfer, without charge, of excess military equipment to state and local civilian law enforcement agencies.

In July, Banning police Cpl.  Joseph Feola emailed a Demilitarization Preparation Responsibilities Memo from Purvis to Gregory Dangremond, a property disposal specialist with the Defense Logistics Agency.

On July 22, a Federal Excess Property Program liaison with local law enforcement agencies distributed an email from Dangremond that reached Banning PD:

"Good morning everyone - great news - we are literally just a few days away from allocating over 500 MRAPs!

" . . . Also - quick note - although I can't guarantee specific variances they basically boil down to two different versions - the ones with 4 wheels and the ones with 6 wheels - using California as an example if the LEAs (law enforcement agencies) let me know which one they want I'll do my best to allocate them that way."

On Sept. 13, Holder told Purvis:

"The arrangements to pick-up our MRAP from Fort Bliss, Texas are now in place. Joe and I will fly out of Ontario Sunday afternoon on Southwest. . . . 

"On Monday morning we will meet our contact at Fort Bliss to sign the final documents and take possession of the vehicle. We will then caravan back to California with Redlands PD, Gardena PD, and West Covina PD. We should arrive back into Banning sometime late Monday evening. . . . "

Photos from the City of Banning show Holder and Feola with a group of four MRAPs on Sept. 16, lined up and ready to go, fueling at a Chevron station, and later in the day, Banning PD's MRAP at the crash scene in Buckeye.

According to an Arizona Department of Public Safety crash report, Feola was driving the 2007 International Navistar MaxxPro MRAP about 5:30 p.m. Sept. 16 at an estimated speed of 75 miles per hour, west on the 10, when two tires on the MRAP blew out.

The 37,000-pound MRAP veered and struck a westbound Ford pickup driven by Steven M. Wells on the passenger side, pushed it into the median, and kicked up rocks, dirt and other debris that damaged an eastbound Chevrolet Impala, according to the crash report.

No one was injured but the crash was costly and the expense may end up being borne by Banning taxpayers.

The pickup was a 2013 four-door F150 4x4 SuperCrew XLT with 301 miles on the odometer, according to the crash report and Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona.

On Sept. 19, a Reimbursement Request from Holder to Purvis included a $550 Unique Heavy Recovery tow bill from the crash location to Phoenix and the tire shop, and $3,117 for installation of four tires and vehicle repair.

"A majority of the expenses are attributed to the incident in which the military vehicle sustained two blown tires in the Phoenix, Arizona area and our subsequent delay in returning to Banning," Holder told Purvis.

In a letter to the City Clerk of Banning dated Oct. 8, a Farmers Insurance Company of Arizona representative advised the City of Banning is expected to pay in full the Ford pickup driver's claim of more than $42,000.

"City agency vehicle first seen after I entered I-10 at mile post/exit 128," Wells wrote in his claim. "City agency vehicle was app. one half mile ahead of me. . . . Vehicle had pass. rear tire blow out, causing vehicle to collide with mine. . . . Vehicle is total loss, towing and storage fees."

A repair estimate for the Ford pickup totaled $22,083. Farmers Insurance declared the damaged vehicle a total loss, valued at $38,750. Final valuation of the claim of $42,173.75 includes sales tax, license transfer fee and deductible, according to Farmers.

The International MaxxPro MRAP "is built to withstand ballistic arms fire, mine blasts, IEDs, and nuclear, biological and chemical environments that threaten the safety of its crew," according to Navistar Defense.

The maximum road speed for MRAPs similar to the one acquired and crashed by Banning police is listed by multiple online sources at 65 mph. The posted speed limit where the crash occurred was 75 mph, according to the Arizona Department of Public Safety.

Approached in person Thursday after city records about the MRAP and the crash were released to Patch, Holder, one of Banning's two acting police commanders, and Banning city spokesman Bill Manis both declined to comment.

The Banning Police Department remained in possession of its MRAP this week. Retrofitting a surplus armored military vehicle for law enforcement can cost $100,000 or more. Whether Banning police will be allowed to keep their newest one remains to be seen.

This report was first published Friday Dec. 13 and updated Monday Dec. 16.
Jeremiah December 15, 2013 at 04:25 PM
No, ATC, it doesn't take "grounds " to file a lawsuit, but it does take grounds to file a claim that is settled rather than denied. Before you file a lawsuit against a governmental agency you must file a claim or get approval. That is "Due Process". Upon denial of the claim, that denial is considered "grounds" to file a lawsuit and have the matter decided by a judge/jury. Loser pays the legal costs. Obviously the city's legal council thought they would lose in court and have to pay legal fees as well as damages and possible punitive damages greater than the claim. By settling they saved that loss and were able to hide whatever it was that their legal counsel felt was so out of line that they could not prevail in court. No matter how you twist it, you cannot change that. It is my personal opinion that Bob Botts, who is also an upstanding and ethical person, also quit over that same issue. Where there is smoke there is usually fire. **** Now I'm really puzzled about your characterization of Purvis signing off on a free piece of very valuable equipment as "his blundering acquisition". That piece of equipment may never be used - but in a hostage or standoff situation it provides a much safer position for law enforcement and also for citizens if needed to quell a riot or disturbance related to terrorism. This is not your mom and dad's world, and yes, it can happen here. It is a tool many law enforcement agencies would give their eye-teeth to have, and it was offered free - get that, free. How does signing off on something like that qualify as a "blundering acquisition"? In my opinion, it was a very wise move by a forward-looking Chief that fell apart because of idiots within his department that acted like little kids with a new toy and drove it faster than it or the tires were rated "safe". How was that Purvis fault? Sounds like sour grapes to me on your part because of a personal dislike - am I wrong? ****Oh, and the little twist in saying it was without the council's knowledge doesn't fly for two reasons - one "A Little Justice has outlined above - the other is that concerning police business that doesn't require additional expenditures, it is usually within the purview of the Police Chief to make decisions concerning his department. That's what he gets paid to do. **** I hope you can get over your bitterness and obsession over Chief Purvis and have a nice Christmas - I really wish that for you. **** Jeremiah
ATC December 15, 2013 at 05:13 PM
Wow, Jeremiah, This is a joke, right? I have a hard time believing that you are really that ignorant. There is no such thing as “loser pays legal costs” in our judicial system. If that were the case, there would be no such thing as frivolous lawsuits or bogus claims, and we all know that is not the case. Most lawsuits never see the inside of a courtroom, because it is much cheaper to settle than it is to fight it in court, and with today’s bleeding heart juries, even when the target of a lawsuit is innocent, there is no telling how a jury will rule. Why spend a million dollars to defend yourself, when the plaintiff will simply go away for a couple hundred thousand? Which is exactly what Purvis was counting on. That’s the reality, and for you to try to twist it proves you are either joking, or stupid, and since I’ve never seen you exhibit much of a sense of hunor… Fortunately, most people with an IQ in at least double digits can see through your bullshit. ******* As for the acquisition of the MRAP, nothing about it is free. The maintenance alone on that type of vehicle will run thousands each year, and it will take thousands of dollars to outfit it for any legitimate police use. How is that free? It should have gone publicly before the council. The current vehicle, based on an amored car, is perfectly sufficient for those “situations” that you outline. We don’t need a 10’ tall, 19 ton vehicle designed to withstand mines and IEDs. And yes, I hold Purvis accountable. Shit rolls downhill, but it starts at the top. He is the one who okayed one of his officers to drive it even though that officer wasn’t licensed for that vehicle (as a police chief, he should have been aware of things like licensing requirements, etc. After all, isn’t that part of what he gets paid to do?). ******* Obviously, you are now simply trying to bait me with blatant, obvious lies. I won’t play that game any further. Have fun.
Jeremiah December 15, 2013 at 05:25 PM
You are showing your ignorance. I'm not even going to bother to reply - it's a waste of time. Merry Christmas! **** Jeremiah
Jim Smith December 15, 2013 at 06:32 PM
ATC, While I even hate to get in the middle of this, I have to. The $80,000 that the Informer says I owed the City was precisely because Dave Dysart & I lost the suit we filed against Barbara Hanna. The only reason the City was involved is exactly what Jeremiah suggested. We were required to file a claim against the City, and have it denied before we could actually file suit against Barbara. Dave & I never filed against the City, but the City Council at the time agreed to defend Barbara. The reason we lost is not because we didn't have a legitimate claim, but because Barbara's speech was protected because she was a sitting council person. Dave Dysart, actually owes 50% of whatever ends up being paid, something the Informer failed to point out, even though his name was on the official court documents. Nothing new, they never provide any details that might not fit their agenda. So, as you can see there is such a thing as the loser paying legal fees!
ATC December 15, 2013 at 07:55 PM
Okay, Jim, so if I understand correctly, you filed a claim against Barbara, but never an actual lawsuit? Then why the attorney’s fees referred to as “trial court proceedings” and “appeal”? The fact that you were ordered to pay the city’s attorney fees for a “trial court proceeding and appeal” suggests that there was indeed a suit, perhaps a counter suit that the city filed to recoup its costs involved in your claim against Barbara? I don’t know, nor do I care about your claim, suit, or any other shady financial dealings that seem to follow you. Thousands of bogus and frivolous lawsuits are filed every day specifically because it is too expensive to fight them. The trial lawyers involved know damn well that if the case ever goes to trial that they would lose, but their goal is not to win the case; the goal is an out of court settlement. For the accused, it is often cheaper to settle than to win; court costs can skyrocket quickly, and in MOST cases, the accused does not get those costs reimbursed unless he files a countersuit. If the city decided that a payout to Purvis was cheaper than going court, so be it; that says nothing about the merits of his claim. * * * * * Again, you are all getting way off track. This article is not about Purvis’ whining over how stressful and unfair anyone made his job (boo hoo), or even whether that claim had any merit or not. There is a whole different article/thread on that, remember? THIS article is about a wholly unneeded vehicle, that under the best case would have still cost the taxpayers a lot of money to maintain & equip, driven in an illegal manner by an unlicensed police officer, totaling a private citizen’s vehicle (luckily not killing them in the process)…But I guess all of that is lost on those of you who idolize Purvis. You win, I give up.
Jeremiah December 15, 2013 at 07:57 PM
Jim - that is why I said he is showing his ignorance. That doesn't equate with stupid or idiot or any of those other names people on here are fond of using - it simply means he doesn't know. I'm getting off the subject with him because every time the name Purvis is mentioned he has to make a snide response not even close to reality. I don't want to ruin his day, so I'm shutting up about it. **** You watch - he will respond to this now because I once again am saying Chief Purvis is the best Police Chief we have ever had and also the most ethical. He is unable to let that stand even though the majority of the community believes that and disagrees with him. Have a Merry Christmas if I don't see you before! **** Jeremiah **** PS - ATC, you should check the difference between the laws for civil suits vs suits brought against governmental agencies. Judges are allowed and do award legal fees to the losing party in lawsuits against governmental agencies to protect the public interest. I too, like Jim Smith, was caught up in that and my lawyer recommended not filing a suit for being falsely prosecuted in a case even though I was clearly in the right because the judge would give immunity to the DA and as the loser I would pay the legal fees. You are not wrong in most of what you say, you just didn't read the fine print or have the actual experience.
Jim Smith December 15, 2013 at 08:04 PM
ATC, Dave & I filed a complaint with the City to clear the way to file a suit against Barbara Hanna. When the City denied the complaint, which is a required procedure we filed a lawsuit against Barbara Hanna. The original ruling was against us and on the advice of our attorney we filed an appeal. We lost the appeal and have the legal fees hanging over us. We only filed the complaint against the City to satisfy procedure. Dave Dysart owes 1/2 of whatever is settled upon, however he has filed BK & moved to Florida.
Jeremiah December 15, 2013 at 08:08 PM
ATC - why does your opinion that the vehicle was unnecessary and a waste of money trump that of those who thought it is a good idea? What makes your opinion more valid than others? For your information, I agree with your assessment of the dolt that wrecked it, and it was by the grace of God he didn't kill the people he hit. Our officers are supposed to have more intelligence and control that to get in a heavy vehicle that is supposed to be under the 55 mph rule and drive it 75 like a passenger car. Especially a surplus vehicle out of storage that you are unaware of the condition. I don't personally want those sort of officers working for me in any city - it shows a complete lack of judgement which I am sure would extend to their daily duties. Again, have a great Christmas, lets leave it on a point of agreement! **** Jeremiah
Jim Smith December 15, 2013 at 08:09 PM
I only broached the subject of responsibility of legal fees because you said there is no such thing as loser pays legal fees. I honestly have no stake in the Purvis issue and only responded because in this thread you made a comment about legal fees that is not accurate.
Amanda Frye December 16, 2013 at 09:01 AM
How much does it cost to maintain or operate such a beastly vehicle? Why would any police department want such a vehicle?
Libi Uremovic December 16, 2013 at 09:13 AM
it's all 'free'....the flight to texas, the fuel, license, taxes, insurance, training - oops, forgot they don't need no stink'n liberal socialist training because 'that' would be a waste of taxpayers' money... the liability insurance alone has probably jumped from $1/4 to $1/2 million/year ....
Jeremiah December 16, 2013 at 09:49 AM
Amanda - they need it for when some "crazy" goes into your child's school and holds your kids hostage - or shoots up the mall in Cabazon - or any number of scenarios that can't be predicted. It's called being prepared. A chance to have something that otherwise could not be afforded was presented and our Police Chief and the city council (who is now trying to distance themselves from the issue) wisely accepted it. According to an ex-councilmember, they all knew about it and it was agreed upon with no public discussion as it is under the purview of the police department and cost nothing to attain. All these supposed "experts" throwing astronomical figures around about maintenance and insurance are pulling the figures out of their hat - a vehicle such as that which is only used in emergencies does not use much fuel nor does it need much maintenance. One of the points of design for military vehicles is for them to be reliable, durable, and not need much maintenance. It will actually cost less to maintain than the unused antique fire truck kept at one of the fire stations. Insurance on the vehicle will not be as high as some would have you think unless they turn it into a daily driver. **** Jeremiah
haden ward December 16, 2013 at 10:47 AM
Well Mr Price, I am sorry but that scenario would not fit in terms of a reason to have that vehicle. The little SWAT team they use, or whatever it’s called, is not a rapid response team. They have to be assembled from home or wherever they are at the time. They would not be a first responder, the Sheriff’s SWAT team would be. And how convenient, the Sheriff’s SWAT team is located next to the police department. Most of this information is available from the web and Banning sources. I am not sure of the overall accuracy so please feel free to fact check. The vehicle is a waste of time at this point other than for some trade shows and special events.
Diego Rose December 16, 2013 at 12:08 PM
Sorry Jeremiah, the city's police department needs this vehicle as much as city fire departments need bulldozers. They just don't. Bulldozers have a use in wild land firefighting just as tanks have a use in war! Again the excuse always used is "safety". I am sorry but safety of a swat team in the events which you talked of is more a matter of smart decisions in tactical advances rather than showing up with the Armory! You have been scared into the same mindless advances against freedom that you speak of in regards to AQMD's decision to impose fire restrictions. Although not directly used for it yet, the potential for it's abuse is evident! Just as you see with many laws, the time for people to stand up is now! There is less crime today than thirty years ago. More people die from falls every year than from gun violence. If the goal really is safety or the public's well being, the money spent to militarize your country could be spend to prevent death through MANY other means.....More money has been spent on the "war on terrorism" then the top TWENTY causes of death, COMBINED!! You are 8x's more likely to die from a police shooting than any type of terrorist attack!! You seem to think your police would never take action against law abiding citizens? May I suggest you review the history of the world and what happens when the government keeps people "SAFE". We as a country are rapidly moving in the same direction as many of the other dictatorships around the world due in large part to everyone's fear of "Bad People". This is a completely useless purchase for the people of Banning. PERIOD! This more than just an opinion. Crime statistics do not support the militarization of city police departments around the country. As well, it is forbidden by law.
ATC December 16, 2013 at 01:10 PM
Jeremiah,   I’ve never claimed that my opinion on this vehicle “trumps” or is in any way “more valid” than anyone elses’, but it is no less valid either.  Banning already possesses an armored vehicle that is more than capable of handling anything that this city is likely to need that type of vehicle for, and will do it much cheaper, faster,  and more efficiently.  This MRAP is huge and unwieldy (21’ long, 8’ wide, 10’ tall, and 19  tons), gets only  5mpg, and is not well suited for residential or small town commercial environments (according to the Marine Corp, they cannot operate in confined areas and are conducive to roll-overs).  And even though it was acquired for “free”, it is nothing of the sort when the bigger picture is viewed.  Setup  alone could cost $50K or more, & while it may be dependable, it still costs more to maintain than a normal vehicle.  This is not an ordinary consumer (or even law enforcement) vehicle, nor in any way similar; it is a unique, highly specialized vehicle, that would likely sit unused for years (very bad on all things rubber, including hoses, belts, and those huge expensive tires).  That all adds up to tax money that could be better spent.   Additionally, I would wager that no one in the Banning PD is actually licensed to legally drive it.  Those are all things that should have been weighed before the acquisition was ever even considered, and I have yet to hear a single good argument FOR the vehicle.  A “crazy” at our school or the Cabazon mall?  This vehicle is too big to get very close, and the “crazy” is likely to be inside the building, not roaming around outside.  Why wouldn’t the current armored vehicle be sufficient, not to mention faster and safer to deploy and drive (legally) to the scene?  (BTW, Cabazon is outside of Banning PD’s jurisdiction).  It was just a “great big neat new toy”, nothing more.  And I’d guess that insurance on this particular MRAP owned/driven by this particular PD likely just took a significant rate increase, you think?
nobodyuno December 16, 2013 at 06:35 PM
Who is going to pay $100,000+ to modify this vehicle for police department use and why isn't approval needed from the city council prior to acquiring such expensive equipment????
Libi Uremovic December 16, 2013 at 07:00 PM
the feds are not innocent in this transaction....they not only gave away military equipment, they obviously released it without verifying license and insurance requirements .... can't believe an insurance company would insure the vehicle without anyone authorized to operate it...
Jeremiah December 16, 2013 at 09:18 PM
Maybe they should sell it? **** Jeremiah
Jeremiah December 16, 2013 at 09:25 PM
Steve - the city council was in agreement - it was just not brought before them publicly. They are trying to distance themselves from this after it turned into a can of worms. One of the ex council members told me they dealt with it and put it in Purvis hands as the Police Chief at the time. I don't see the same problems as you guys do and I think the council made a good decision. All of you guys points are as valid as mine - there are definitely pros and cons to owning it and I am a little uncertain how responsible the people in charge are. They haven't shown a lot of maturity. **** Jeremiah
Jeremiah December 16, 2013 at 09:43 PM
A couple of points neither for or against, just observations - anyone with a Class 1 or Class A license, whichever they are calling it at the moment, would be qualified and have a proper license to drive it. As far as insurance, Bob Little, who owns a longtime insurance company in Banning, is a friend of mine and next time I see him I will ask him what he estimates it would cost to insure the vehicle. Kind of curious on that myself. Does anyone know if Banning carries insurance through an insurance company or are they self insured? If they are self-insured Banning just took a $42,000 hit - and that is before the bills are all in - Caltrans will want a hefty penny for any damage to guard rails or dividers and they will charge for debris clearance as well. **** Jeremiah
Amanda Frye December 16, 2013 at 10:54 PM
These MRAPs are said to get 3 mpg. Do the MRAP tires really cost $925 and tire liners $750? What city can afford to own one of these metal white elephants? No wonder the Department of Defense is giving these white elephant MRAPs away to sucker cities that want to be burden with a financial liability. Interesting blog post on MRAPs from a concerned Patch reader. http://montville-ct.patch.com/groups/howards-blog/p/mrap-vehicles-in-connecticut-civilian-police-service
ATC December 16, 2013 at 11:44 PM
Actually, a Class B license woild suffice. To obtain a Class B license — Adults must: •Complete an application for a driver license (DL 44). •Pay the application fee. •Submit a Physician's Health Report (DL 546A) signed by your physician dated not more than two years prior to the date of your application. •Pass the basic Class C law test, unless you renewed your Class C license within the past 12 months. •Pass the Driver's Examination for 45' Housecars law test. •Pass a vision test. •Perform a vehicle safety check. •Pass a skills test. •Pass a driving test. While possible, it's doubtful that any Banning officers have a class B license. It just isn't that common.
Libi Uremovic December 16, 2013 at 11:51 PM
'...Perform a vehicle safety check. •Pass a skills test. •Pass a driving test...' the mrap should have been towed back until it was compliant with cali law... was the banning police force cited for wreck-less driving, driving without license or registration, etc...??
Jeremiah December 17, 2013 at 12:49 AM
This is one time I agree with you, Libi - this was a surplus vehicle which had been stored for who knows how long. It was the height of irresponsibility and recklessness to jump in it and drive it faster than the rated speed not knowing the condition of the tires or other parts. **** ATC, you are right, it is an unarticulated vehicle over 10,000 lbs and a class b is allowable for that although class b is generally considered a bus license and isn't that common. Nothing has been said about what licenses Holder and Feola have, but maybe that should be asked at a council meeting, because most police officers have only a class c. Nah, they will just fall back on the Brown Act response and say they are not allowed to comment. **** Amanda, I suspect that the tires in question cost much more than that - usually military vehicles have tires with a kevlar belt in them and are built to withstand explosions and bullets without deflating. That's why I have serious doubts about the story of 2 tires shredding. The truck that got hit was side-swiped according to the article and that sounds more like whoever was driving lost control. Really puzzled over this one because these tires are designed to survive running over mines and anti-personnel devices. **** Jeremiah
Rudy Garcia December 17, 2013 at 10:23 AM
It is mind boggling to think that the Banning PD needs to have an MRAP in its arsenal.
Steve Rogers December 17, 2013 at 11:22 AM
This better be the last straw for Redlands CM Nabar, otherwise the City Council, and our darling Mayor better consider resigning over this mess... just look at what is happening in Banning! And PIO Herr Carl says no pics of the MRAP until after the retrofit?? They'd better not be hiding the MRAP in its current STATE OF DISREPAIR at the Motorpool otherwise they are sure to be cited by the CHP for EQUIPMENT MAINTENANCE VIOLATIONS with the CITY FLEET... Three strikes and YOU'RE OUT NABAR! Looks like the Redlands City Manager will be getting an INJUNCTION for Christmas to go along with his personal acquisition of this new MONEY PIT of a vehicle, where the costs to retrofit, maintain and insure would be over $200K (and that is just the initial expenditure required to place it into service). CHP SANTA will be taking over responsibility for our City fleet maintenance oversight in the NEW YEAR... so HAPPY HOLIDAYS from GENERAL PUBLIC... where PUBLIC SAFETY is always JOB #1 instead of threatening people through the militarization of the RPD.
kim murphy December 17, 2013 at 11:31 AM
So Purvis was in on this transaction.
calimesajim December 17, 2013 at 11:34 AM
Couple police acquisitions of military war equipment with fact that police are now killing more people annually than in Iraq war. Getting very scary in America!
haden ward December 17, 2013 at 02:13 PM
Well, lets see what they get next, maybe a Black Hawk, or an Apache....No wait, a hover craft..........It would be nice if they could get some civilian personnel so the lobby of the station could be open on a regular basis... Sorry, just being cheeky.
drew cosgrove December 18, 2013 at 03:23 PM
These MRAP's Will not be California CARB compliant. Add 25,000 $ per unit to be diesel engine smog compliant.

Boards

More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »