Government

‘CAREN Act’ Aims To Stop Discriminatory 911 Calls To San Francisco Police

Published

6 years ago

July 15, 2020

By Kiki

On July 7, 2020, Supervisor Shamman Walton introduced an ordinance to amend the San Francisco Police Code known as the Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies (CAREN) Act.

The ‘CAREN Act’ will make it unlawful to “fabricate false, racially-biased emergency reports.”

CAREN is a play on words of a name ascribed to (mostly) white women – ‘Karen’ – who attempt to police the ordinary activities of people of color. The men who take such actions are referred to as ‘Ken.’

California State Assemblymember Rob Bonta of Oakland has a similar measure with AB 1550 bill and they are joining forces.

The bill and ordinance were motivated by what was considered frivolous calls to the police in the Bay Area and other cities. For instance, in Alameda, because Mali Watkins, a Black man, was dancing in the streets in front of his own home; James Juanillo, a Filipino man, was stenciling “Black Lives Matter” in chalk in front of his own San Francisco home and was confronted by a ‘Karen’ and her male partner who called the police.

A ‘Karen’ in New York falsely called the police on Craig Cooper while he was bird watching and asked her to put a leash on her dog.

These incidents were recorded and got media attention. There are countless others unrecorded.

“The CAREN Act and AB 1550 are a joint local and state effort to address and discourage using 911 as customer service based on someone’s race, said Walton. “We know that Oregon and New York have passed similar legislation and we hope that other municipalities and states can implement laws to protect the rights of communities of color who are often targeted and victims of fraudulent emergency calls.

“The CAREN Act will make it unlawful for an individual to contact law enforcement solely to discriminate on the basis of a person’s race, ethnicity, religious affiliation, gender, sexual orientation, or gender identity. We will also introduce a resolution today in support of AB 1550 at the full board.”

People should not be allowed “to use our 911 and law enforcement systems as weapons for hate, Bonta said. “The CAREN Act and my AB 1550 demonstrate our commitment to directly address such racism and bolster our California values of justice, inclusion, equity and opportunity.

“If you are afraid of a Black family barbecuing in the community park, a man dancing and doing his normal exercise routine in the bike lane, or someone who asks you to comply with dog leash laws in a park, and your immediate response is to call the police, the real problem is with your own personal prejudice, Bonta said.

Human Rights Commission Director Sheryl Davis said there should be consequences for actions that threaten the freedom and safety of others. Calling the police on someone that you label as out of place, simply for being Black or a person of color in public, is just as dangerous as yelling fire in a crowded theater, Davis said.

“You are putting someone’s well-being at risk by subjecting them to a humiliating, unnecessary, sometimes lethal police interaction,” Davis said. “Fining 911 abusers who waste police time and violate their fellow citizens’ civil rights is one way to discourage this abhorrent behavior.”

Shakirah Smiley, director of the Office of Racial Equity, is of the same mind. “It’s time to hold people accountable for these frivolous, racist, and life-threatening calls,” she said. “In a time where we are rethinking policing and its disparate impact on the Black community, we need more meaningful measures in place to put an end to racial profiling.”

The CAREN Act and AB 1550 will provide a civil cause of actions for the people harmed by the 911 calls. There will also be monetary fines.

AB 1550 will classify the false call as a hate crime and allow for damages.

The bills aim to discourage people from making the discriminatory calls and to compensate the victims if calls are made.

By Kiki

Posts by By Kiki

Up Next

ICE Says Foreign Students Must Attend In-Person Classes to Stay in U.S. in Fall

Don't Miss

COVID Prison Release to Start With Non-Violent Inmates Over Age 30

By Kiki

Click to comment

Community

Four Candidates, Including Incumbent Barbara Lee, Qualify for Oakland Mayor’s Race

POST NEWS GROUP — Four candidates, including incumbent Mayor Barbara Lee, filed their papers to run for office by last Friday’s deadline, and the City Clerk issued a list this week of those who are qualified to run.

Published

8 hours ago

August 15, 2026

bpusa-syndication

View of downtown Oakland, California and City Hall. iStock photo.

By Post Staff

The four mayoral candidates who will appear on the Nov. 3 ballot are:

Brenda Grisham. A business owner in East Oakland and public safety advocate, Grisham led the successful recall campaign against Alameda County District Attorney Pamela Price. As part of her platform, she pledges to work with local, state, and federal partners to secure stricter gun control measures and investments in community violence intervention programs.

Barbara Lee. A former congressional representative and state Assembly member, Lee was elected by voters in a special election last year for a two-year term. Now running for a four-year term, she points out that her administration achieved major successes in addressing some of the city’s major challenges, including balancing the city budget, dramatically reducing crime, and making significant inroads into homelessness and illegal dumping.

Mindy Pechenuk. An educator and activist, Pechenuk is a registered Republican and supporter of Lyndon LaRouche, who has been described by observers as a conspiracy theorist and cult leader. She ran unsuccessfully for mayor in last year’s special election and for the at-large council seat in 2024. She seeks to end Oakland’s police commission and MACRO and invest in more police while launching a new local war on drugs.

Julius Robinson. While little information is available so far about Robinson, he was quoted in a KTVU story about Thao’s recall, stating that people in Oakland want to come together as a community but lack infrastructure and leadership.

bpusa-syndication

Posts by bpusa-syndication

Activism

Oakland Post: Week of August 12 – 18, 2026

The printed Weekly Edition of the Oakland Post: Week of August 12 – 18, 2026

Published

11 hours ago

August 15, 2026

Oakland Post

To enlarge your view of this issue, use the slider, magnifying glass icon or full page icon in the lower right corner of the browser window.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

Commentary

COMMENTARY: Why Local School Tax Measure G1 Will Not Be on the November Ballot

POST NEWS GROUP — Measure G1 is the local tax measure that supports middle school teacher retention and the expansion of arts, music, and world language programs at both OUSD middle schools and charter middle schools. The current measure expires in 2029.

Published

11 hours ago

August 15, 2026

bpusa-syndication

By Jennifer Brouhard, Oakland School Board President

There has been considerable speculation recently about why Measure G1 will not appear on the November ballot and what that means for the Oakland Unified School District’s current budget.

I want to provide some clarity about what happened and, importantly, what did not happen.

Measure G1 is the local tax measure that supports middle school teacher retention and the expansion of arts, music, and world language programs at both OUSD middle schools and charter middle schools. The current measure expires in 2029.

Because these funds are important to our schools and to the continuity of these programs, the district initially intended to place a renewal initiative on the November ballot to provide greater early certainty about funding beyond the expiration of the current measure.

As part of that process, the Board scheduled a special meeting for the required public hearing on the ballot initiative. There has been some suggestion that this meeting was noticed only one day in advance. That is not accurate.

Public hearings of this nature are subject to specific notice requirements, and the meeting must be noticed at least two weeks before the hearing. In practice, the notice may appear even earlier depending on publication schedules. The notice for the Measure G1 public hearing was published in the Tribune on 7/24/2026 and 7/31/2026.

So, why wasn’t the Measure G1 paperwork ultimately filed?

After the Board approved placing the measure on the ballot, the next step required the Alameda County Superintendent of Schools to sign the necessary paperwork before it could be submitted to the Oakland City Clerk.

During that process, Alameda County Superintendent Alysse Castro raised concerns about potential litigation stemming from another court case unrelated to OUSD and about whether proceeding with the measure could expose the district or County to legal challenges. Superintendent Castro’s action is unprecedented and concerning.

It is important to distinguish between the Board’s decision to pursue Measure G1 and the subsequent procedural and legal issues that arose. The Board did approve moving forward with the measure. The measure did not fail because the Board chose not to support it, nor was the public hearing improperly noticed.

The decision not to proceed with the November ballot was made in light of the County’s concerns about potential litigation and the County’s required approval process.

We also need to be clear about what this does, and does not, mean for OUSD’s current budget. The existing Measure G1 funds remain available through the expiration of the current measure in 2029. The immediate issue is the longer-term continuity of funding beyond that date, not the elimination of these resources from the current year’s budget.

Our responsibility as a Board is to protect the educational programs and services our students depend on while ensuring that our decisions comply with the law and protect the district from unnecessary legal and financial risk.

We will continue working to understand the County’s concerns, explore our options, and advocate for the resources our students deserve. Our middle school students, teachers, and school communities deserve stability, and continued investment in arts, music, world languages, and teacher retention—and that work remains a priority for Oakland Unified.

Jennifer Brouhard is a retired OUSD educator and is the current OUSD School Board President representing District 2.