Johnson County is planning to keep its military vehicle, even with no real rules to govern its use

Johnson County is likely to keep its armored military truck, even though local governments have no meaningful regulations about when it can be deployed in neighborhoods.

The 26-ton truck built for desert combat has occasionally been the target of public criticism since it was acquired by the county 7 years ago. That criticism ramped up after it was used to serve warrants this spring in Iowa City even after City Council members said they favored getting rid of the vehicle, which is known as an MRAP (mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicle)

In response to calls to dispose of the MRAP, Johnson County Sheriff Brad Kunkel, whose office maintains it, gave the Board of Supervisors a choice: Buy a $275,000 civilian alternative as a replacement or he’ll keep the armored truck, a position he said he was not willing to negotiate on.

At a meeting this week, the Board of Supervisors agreed to defer discussion on buying the civilian vehicle, known by the brand name BearCat, until the regular budgeting process late this year and keep the MRAP in the meantime. Some critics say the board should use its budgeting authority to force the sheriff to get rid of the military vehicle and also forgo the BearCat, but it’s clear that the majority of supervisors is not willing to play that kind of hardball.

So, whether it’s a military MRAP or a civilian BearCat, Johnson County is going to have an armored law enforcement vehicle. The task now should be ensuring public oversight, which currently is nonexistent.

The existing county policy on the MRAP is embarrassingly inadequate. It reads more like a brief overview at the beginning of a training manual.

If military equipment is going to operate in residential neighborhoods, there ought to be strict rules about where and how it’s used.

The Sheriff’s Office’s internal policy gives a list of situations when the armored vehicle can be used, including “unusual incidents” and “planned and unplanned events within the community,” so pretty much whenever cops think they need it. It says operators must be trained but doesn’t say anything about what the training entails. It lists the height and weight of the MRAP, which might be good for operators to know but mass is governed by the laws of physics, not by county policy.

The policy, which includes at least one obvious typo, was mostly borrowed from Lexipol, an out-of-state company that consults with law enforcement agencies.

“There’s a lot more that I think needs to be included in a policy. … This is maybe, like, a vague idea, but it’s not quite there yet,” said Supervisor Lisa Green-Douglass, one of the two supervisors who opposes having any kind of armored vehicle.

It reminds me of the adoption of police body cameras over the last several years. They were heralded as a game-changer for police accountability, but many civilian overseers didn’t bother to make sure departments had rules to regulate the technology. As a result, departments have differing and sometimes inadequate standards for when the cameras have to be turned on and how the footage is managed.

This is how it often goes with police gadgets and gear. Departments buy equipment they say will make officers or the public safer, but there’s little scrutiny to make sure it actually works as intended.

In this case, former Sheriff Lonny Pulkrabek acquired the vehicle in 2014 from the Obama administration without input or oversight from the Board of Supervisors and initially there was no policy governing its use.

“I am absolutely in support of officer safety, 100 percent. What I don’t appreciate is the implication that if I don’t support this armored vehicle, then I am therefore against officer safety,” Green-Douglass told me after the meeting.

The thing is, local authorities haven’t made a clear case that the vehicle is necessary to ensure officer safety. It’s often staged nearby rather than directly at the scene, and it offers no protection to those who aren’t inside it.

When pressed by civilian policymakers for answers about procedure, police officials too often say every situation is different. That’s undoubtedly true, but in a representative government, it’s not a good enough explanation of police practices.

The county and all the local police departments that use the MRAP need much more specific guidelines about what types of situations necessitate a tactical response and an armored vehicle.

The Board of Supervisors and city councils also could demand a report from the sheriff and the lead agency each time the armored vehicle is deployed, or at least an annual or quarterly report with details about each case. They could make funding the armored vehicle contingent on such an arrangement.

If military equipment is going to operate in residential neighborhoods, there ought to be strict rules about where and how it’s used.

(319) 339-3156; adam.sullivan@thegazette.com