CITY OF OAKLAND
POLICY FOR PRIVACY AND DATA RETENTION FOR THE PORT DOMAIN
AWARENESS CENTER (DAC)
I. BACKGROUND AND OVERVIEW
Port Domain Awareness Center (interchangeably referred to in this document as
Port Domain Awareness Center”, “Domain Awareness Center,” or “DAC”) was first proposed
to the City Council’s Public Safety Committee on June 18, 2009, in an information report
regarding the City of Oakland partnering with the Port of Oakland to apply for Port Security
Grant funding under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, 2009.
Under this grant program, funding was available for Maritime Domain Awareness (MDA)
projects relative to “maritime” or “waterside” uses. The Port and City were encouraged to
consider the development of a joint City-Port Domain Awareness Center. The joint DAC could
create a center that would bring together the technology, systems and processes that would
provide for an effective understanding of anything associated with the City of Oakland
boundaries as well as the Oakland maritime operations that could impact the security, safety,
economy or environment. However, the City Council action on March 4th, 2014 limited the
scope of the DAC to the Port. Therefore, the DAC and the entirety of this policy are exclusive
to Port areas within Oakland. Any effort to expand the DAC beyond the Port would require a
public hearing and action by the City Council.
“Port Domain Awareness” is defined as the effective understanding of anything associated
with all areas and things of on, under, relating to, adjacent to, or bordering the sea, ocean, or
other navigable waterways, including all first responder and maritime related activities,
infrastructure, people, cargo, and vessels and other conveyances that could impact the security,
safety, economy, or environment.
The DAC would be used as a tool or system to accomplish this effective understanding as it
relates to the security, safety, economy or environment of the Port of Oakland.
The DAC is a joint project between the Port and the City of Oakland. The DAC is physically
located within the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and it can collect and monitor live
streams of video, audio, and/or data, watching for time-critical events that require an
immediate response. Additionally, the DAC is the part of the EOC that stays alert between
emergencies and refers Port-adjacent incidents to the EOC staff for the EOC activation
decision. While the rest of the EOC activates, the DAC can share relevant information to
incident participants until the EOC infrastructure takes over.
II. MISSION OF THE DOMAIN AWARENESS CENTER
The mission of the DAC is to have situational awareness needed for time-critical decision
making in order to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergencies and crime at
the Port.
1530151 Page 1 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 III. POLICY PURPOSE
This policy’s purpose is to protect the Right to Privacy, civil liberties, and freedom of speech
of the general public as protected by the California and Federal Constitutions, and erect
safeguards around any data captured and retained by the DAC, and to protect against its
improper use, distribution and/or breach and in how it is used for law enforcement
investigations. This policy shall be referred to as the DAC Privacy and Data Retention Policy
(“Policy”). More specifically, the principal intent of this Policy is to ensure the DAC adheres to
constitutionality, especially the 1st and 4th amendments of the U.S. Constitution and the
California Constitution. Also, this Policy is designed to see that the DAC processes are
transparent, presume people’s innocence, and protects all people’s privacy and civil liberties.
Privacy includes our right to keep a domain around us, which includes all those things that are
part of us, such as our body, home, property, thoughts, feelings, associations, secrets and
identity. The right to privacy gives us the ability to choose which parts in this domain can be
accessed by others, and to control the extent, manner and timing of the use of those parts we
choose to disclose. The importance of privacy can be illustrated by dividing privacy into three
equally significant parts: 1) Secrecy - our ability to keep our opinions known only to those we
intend to receive them, without secrecy, people may not discuss affairs with whom they choose,
excluding those with whom they do not wish to converse. 2) Anonymity - Secrecy about who is
sending and receiving an opinion or message, and 3) Autonomy - Ability to make our own life
decision free from any force that has violated our secrecy or anonymity.
This Policy is designed to promote a “presumption of privacy” which simply means that
individuals do not relinquish their right to privacy when they leave private spaces and that as a
general rule people do not expect or desire for law enforcement to monitor, record, and/or
aggregate their activities as a consequence of participating in modern society.
IV. UPDATES TO THE POLICY AND TO DAC
A. City Council shall establish a permanent Privacy Policy Advisory Committee for the DAC.
The permanent Privacy Policy Advisory Committee shall have jurisdiction as determined
by the City Council, including but not limited to reviewing and advising on any proposed
changes to this Policy or to the DAC.
B. No changes to this Policy shall occur without City Council approval. This Policy is developed as a
working document, and will be periodically updated to ensure the relevance of the Policy with the
ever changing field of technology. All changes proposed to the Policy or to the DAC must be
submitted to and reviewed and evaluated by the Privacy Policy Advisory Committee for
recommendation for submission to the City Council, and include an opportunity for public
meetings, a public comment period of no less than 30 days, and written agency response to these
comments. City Council approval shall not occur until after the 30 day public comment period and
written agency response period has completed.

C. For any proposed changes for the Policy that occur prior to the City Council establishing
the permanent Privacy Policy Advisory Committee, such changes shall be in the purview of
the City Council.
D. The City Council, through passed resolution 84869 on March 4th, 2014, which provides in
relevant part the following limitations on the Domain Awareness Center:
1530151 Page 2 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 That the Domain Awareness center will be implemented in a port-only approach and
shall hereafter be referred to as the “Port Domain Awareness Center (DAC); and . . .
That the following items will be removed from the DAC Phase I integration: (a) Shot
Spotter in immediate areas outside of the Port Area, and (b) 40 City Traffic Cameras
identified on pages 9 and 10 of the City Administrator’s Supplemental Agenda Report,
dated February 27, 2014, and . . .
That the following items will be removed from DAC Phase II integration: (a) Police and
Fire Records Management Systems (RMS), and (b) any news feeds and alerts except
those expressly listed in the City Administrator’s Supplemental Agenda Report, dated
February 27, 2014, and . . .
That staff shall: (1) develop a clear definition of the Police and Fire Computer Aided
Dispatch (CAD) that will be integrated into the DAC, and (2) develop a protocol for the
use of such CAD data by the DAC, and . . .
That operation of any DAC program beyond the Port area may only move forward upon
explicit approval of the Council, and . . .
That City, as opposed to Port, Shot Spotter is specifically excluded from the Port-only
Domain Awareness Center program and may only be included in the future upon
approval by the Council, and . . .
That there will be no data or information sharing with any local, state, or federal
agency/entity without a written Memorandum of Understanding that has been approved
by Council, and . . .
That no new system capabilities can be added to the DAC without express City Council
approval, including, but not limited to technological functionalities such as facial
recognition, other forms of analytics (like “gait analysis”, in which someone can be
identified based on the way they walk) or other capabilities that haven’t yet been invented
but are soon to come . . .
V. DEFINITIONS
As used in this Policy, the following terms are defined below:
“Allowable Use” means the list of uses in Section VIII A. of this Policy for which the DAC
can be used.
“Analytics” means the discovery and understanding of meaningful patterns and trends in data
for well-informed decisions. Especially valuable in areas rich with recorded information,
analytics relies on the simultaneous application of statistics, computer programming and
operations research to quantify performance.
1530151 Page 3 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 “Bookmark” means a feature of video management systems that allows DAC Staff to quickly
mark and annotate a moment for later review; the time stamped record is the bookmark.
“Compliance Officer” means the City Auditor or their designee who is responsible for
reviewing the quarterly reports prepared by the Internal Privacy Officer and conducts random
audits to ensure the DAC Staff is abiding by this Policy.
“DAC Data” means any data or information fed into, stored, or collected or captured by the
DAC System, or derived therefrom.
“DAC Operations Group” means the various personnel who support and maintain the DAC IT
systems.
“DAC Staff” means the City of Oakland employees who will be responsible for monitoring
the equipment within the DAC on a day-to-day basis, including supervisors, and that have
completed appropriate training prior to interaction with the DAC.
“DAC System” means access and use of the following combined feeds and systems in one
application or framework: Port Security Cameras (Phase 1), Port Intrusion Detection System
(IDS) (Phase 1), Port GIS (Phase 2), Port Vessel Tracking (Phase 2), Port Truck Management
(Phase 2), Police and Fire CAD (Phase 2), WebEOC Notifications (Phase 2), Tsunami Alerts
(Phase 2), Police and Fire Automatic Vehicle Location (Phase 2), NOAA Weather Alerts
(Phase 2), USGS Earthquake Information (Phase 2), City of Oakland Shot Spotter Audio
Sensor System (only those sensors that provide coverage to Port areas), and the physical
security information system, server, attached storage, and mobile devices. “DAC System”
does not refer to the use of any of these systems or feeds outside the DAC application or
framework.
“EOC” means: Oakland's Emergency Operations Center, a facility and service of the Oakland
Fire Department's Emergency Management Services Division (EMSD). The EMSD ensures
"that the City of Oakland and community are at the highest level of readiness and able to
prevent, mitigate against, prepare for, respond to and recover from the effects of natural and
human-caused emergencies that threaten lives, property and the environment." "EMSD also
supports the coordination of the response efforts of Oakland's Police, Fire and other first
responders in the City's state-of-the-art Emergency Operations Center to ensure maximum
results for responders, the ability to provide up-to-date public information and the ability to
provide the best resource management during a crisis. Additionally, EMSD coordinates with
the Operational Area and other partner agencies to guarantee the seamless integration of
federal, state and private resources into local response and recovery operations. The EOC is a
secure facility with access limited to City employees with a need for access, contractors, and
security-cleared members of partner organizations. The EOC facility hosts the Port DAC
systems, data, and staff.”
“Internal Privacy Officer” means the person who oversees the day-to-day operations of the
DAC and who is charged with ensuring the DAC Staff are abiding by this Policy on a day-to1530151 Page 4 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 day basis. They check the logs, file reports, and make immediate decisions that arise that do
not allow time for a further review.
"ITD" means the City of Oakland's Information Technology Department.
“Major Emergency” means the existence of conditions of disaster or extreme peril to the safety
of persons and property within the territorial limits of the Port of Oakland or having a
significant adverse impact within the territorial limits of the Port of Oakland, caused by such
conditions as air pollution, fire, flood, storm, epidemic, drought, sudden and severe energy
shortage, plant or animal infestation or disease, the state Governor’s warning of an earthquake
or volcanic prediction, or an earthquake, or other conditions, which are likely to be beyond the
control of the services, personnel, equipment, and facilities of the City of Oakland and require
the combined forces of other political subdivisions to combat, or with respect to regulated
energy utilities, a sudden and severe energy shortage requires extraordinary measures beyond
the authority vested in the California Public Utilities Commission.
“Need To Know” means even if one has all the necessary official approvals (such as a security
clearance) to access the DAC System, one shall not be given access to the system or DAC Data
unless one has a specific need to access the system or data in order to conduct one's official
duties in connection with one of the Allowable Uses in Section VIII A. of this Policy.
Furthermore, the “need” shall be established prior to access being granted by the designated
City official or their designee and shall be recorded in accordance with Internal Record
Keeping and Auditing requirements under Section IX.
“Personally Identifiable Information” (called PII) means any data or information that alone or
together with other information can be tied to an individual with reasonable certainty. This
includes, but is not limited to one’s , name, social security number, physical description, home
address, telephone number, other telephone identifiers, education, financial matters, medical
history, employment history, photographs of faces, whereabouts, distinguishing marks, license
plates, cellphone meta-data, internet connection meta-data.
“Protected Activity” means all rights including without limitation: speech, associations,
conduct, and privacy rights including but not limited to expression, advocacy, association, or
participation in expressive conduct to further any political or social opinion or religious belief
as protected by the United States Constitution and/or the California Constitution and/or
applicable statutes and regulations. The First Amendment does not permit government “to
forbid or proscribe advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such
advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or
produce such action.” White v. Lee (9th Cir. 2000) 227 F.3d 1214, 1227; Brandenburg v. Ohio
(1969) 395 U.S. 444, 447.
Example of speech not protected by 1st Amendment: People v. Rubin (1979) 96
C.A.3d 968. Defendant Rubin, a national director of the Jewish Defense League, held a
press conference in California to protest a planned demonstration by the American Nazi
Party to take place in Illinois in five weeks. During his remarks, Rubin stated: “We are
offering five hundred dollars . . . to any member of the community . . . who kills, mains,
1530151 Page 5 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 or seriously injures a member of the American Nazi Party. . . . This is not said in jest, we
are deadly serious.” Rubin was charged with solicitation for murder. The appeals court
upheld the charge, reasoning that Rubin’s words were sufficiently imminent and likely to
produce action on the part of those who heard him. Id. at 978-979.
Example of speech protected by 1st Amendment: Watts v. U.S. (1969) 394 U.S. 705.
The defendant, Watts, stated that he would refuse induction into armed forces and “if
they ever make me carry a rifle the first man I want in my sights is L.B.J.”. and was
federally charged with “knowingly and willfully threatening the president.” The Court,
reasoned that Watts did not make a “true ‘threat’” but instead was merely engaging in a
type of political hyperbole. Id., at 708.
“Reasonable Suspicion” means specific and articulable facts which, taken together with
rational inferences from those facts, evince more than an inchoate and unparticularized
suspicion or hunch that an individual or organization is involved in a definable criminal
activity or enterprise. Reasonable Suspicion shall not be based on Protected Activity.
Furthermore, a suspect’s actual or perceived race, national origin, color, creed, age, alienage or
citizenship status, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or housing status, shall not be
considered as a factor that creates suspicion, and may only be used as identifying information
in the description of a criminal suspect.
The “Right to Privacy” is recognized by the California Constitution as follows:
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are
enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and
pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. Cal. Const. Art. 1, Section 1.

VI. ACCESS TO THE DAC SYSTEM / EQUIPMENT
Day to Day Operations
The DAC computer and network equipment is maintained by the City’s DAC Operations
Group.
Only DAC Staff will be used to monitor DAC Data. All employees who are assigned to
monitor the DAC Data will be required to undergo security background checks at the local
level as well as security clearances at state and/or federal levels and will be required to sign
binding Non-Disclosure Agreements to ensure data and information security.
Training
Training by the Internal Privacy Officer is required prior to interaction with the DAC System.
All DAC Staff who are assigned to monitor the DAC Data will be required to participate in
specific training around constitutional rights, protections, and appropriate uses of the DAC
System and consequences for violating this Policy.
1530151 Page 6 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 Critical incidents/emergencies/EOC activations
During an Allowable Use as enumerated in Section VIII A. with EOC activation,
notwithstanding the requirements in Section VII, City of Oakland Agency Directors and/or
their designees in the Emergency Operations Center (EOC) and outside governmental agencies
and non-governmental agencies’ staff assisting with the Allowable Use (such as the Red Cross)
that would report to EOC may have limited access to the live data produced by the DAC
System only on a Need To Know basis and if there was a direct correlation between the
Allowable Use and DAC operations.
Support and Repairs
ITD staff and vendors that installed the systems as well as other maintenance providers will
have access to the system components but will be prohibited from access to DAC data. Various
manufacturers and vendors are hired to provide additional support services. Any system and
network level access by these vendors require both a background check and ITD employee
presence. The system level access is maintained by ITD staff, however the Applications level
access, as far as end-users are concerned, is maintained by the DAC Staff.

Funding Auditing Purposes
Federal, State, or Local funding auditors may have access to only equipment, hardware, and
software solely for audit purposes and must abide by the requirements of this Policy.
VII. ACCESS TO INFORMATION AND DATA OBTAINED THROUGH DAC
A. Access: Access to DAC Data shall be limited exclusively to City and Port employees with a
Need To Know. Other than DAC Staff, any sworn or non-sworn personnel without a direct
role in investigating or responding to an incident will not be permitted access to DAC Data.
B. Data Sharing: If the DAC Data that is being requested is from an outside feeder source, the
law enforcement agency seeking such information must go to the original source of the
information to request the data, video or information. In order for DAC Staff to provide DAC
Data to non-City of Oakland agencies there must be a warrant based upon probable cause,
court order, or a written Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Contract approved by the
City Council after enactment of this Policy. Any legislation authorizing such MOU or
Contract must clearly state whether the MOU or Contract will allow for DAC Data to be
shared with another agency. Furthermore, any such MOU or Contract must provide in the
title of such document that it authorizes the sharing of DAC Data with another agency.
C. Retention: The DAC shall not record any data except bookmarks of Allowable Uses as
defined in Section VIII.

1530151 Page 7 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 VIII. ALLOWABLE USE
A. Uses: The following situations at the Port are the only ones in which the use of the DAC is
allowable and may be activated in response to:
Active Shooter
Aircraft Accident or Fire
Barricaded Subject
Bomb/Explosion
Bomb Threat
Burglary
Cargo Train Derailment
Chemical or Biological Incident
Container Theft
Earthquake
Electrical Substation Intruder Alarm
Fire
Flooding-Water Main Break
HAZMAT Incident
Hostage Situation
Major Emergency
Marine Terminal Fence Line Intruder Alarm
Mass Casualty Incident
Major Acts of Violence (likely to cause
great bodily injury)
Medical Emergency
Missing or Abducted Person
Pandemic Disease

Passenger Train Derailment
Person Overboard
Port Terminal/Warehouse Intruder
Power Outage
Radiation/Nuclear Event Detected
Severe Storm
Ship Accident or Fire
Ship Intruder/Breach
Supply Chain Disruption
Street Racing/Side Show
Takeover of a vehicle or vessel (transit jack)
Telecommunications/Radio Failure
TWIC Access Control Violation
Tsunami Warning
Technical Rescue
Unauthorized Person in Secure Zone
Unmanned Aerial Vehicle in Port airspace
Vehicle Accident requiring emergency
medical attention
Wildfire -3 Alarm or greater

B. The DAC shall not be used to infringe, monitor, or intrude upon Protected Activity except
where all of the following conditions are met:
1) There is a Reasonable Suspicion of criminal wrongdoing; and
2) DAC Staff articulates the facts and circumstances surrounding the use and basis for
Reasonable Suspicion in a written statement filed with the Internal Privacy Officer no
later than 8 hours after activation of the DAC System.
IX. AUDITS AND REPORTING METRICS
Because surveillance technology invites abuse by persons with access to its tools and data, the
DAC shall be periodically audited for compliance with this Policy.
Internal Recordkeeping, Auditing, and Internal Privacy Officer

1530151 Page 8 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 It is recommended that a City official or designee serve as an Internal Privacy Officer. Such an
official shall oversee the day-to-day operations of the DAC and will be charged with ensuring
the DAC staff is abiding by this policy on a day-to-day basis. Further, such official shall check
the logs, file reports, and make immediate decisions that arise that do not allow time for a further
review and shall be responsible for preparing the Internal Recordkeeping and Audits and
ensuring DAC Staff compliance with this Policy.
The results of Internal Auditing shall be provided to the Compliance Officer, City Administrator,
the City Council, and be made publicly available to the extent the release of such information is
not prohibited by law.
DAC Staff shall keep the enumerated records in this section for a period of two years to support
compliance with this Policy and allow for independent third party auditors to readily search and
understand the DAC System and DAC Data. The records shall include the following:
1. A written list of methods for storing bookmarks and DAC Data, including how the data is to
be secured, segregated, labeled or indexed; 

2. A written list of who may access the DAC System and DAC Data and persons responsible
for authorizing such access; and
3. Auditing mechanisms that track and record how the DAC System and DAC Data are viewed,
accessed, shared, analyzed, modified, bookmarked, deleted, or retained. For each such action,
the logs shall include timestamps, the person who performed such action, and a justification
for it (e.g., specific authorized use).
External Audits/Public Safety Effectiveness
Quarterly and as needed audits of the DAC System will be conducted and made publicly
available to the extent the release of such information is not prohibited by law, by the
Compliance Officer to ensure compliance with this Policy. The audit shall include the following
information and describe any corrective action taken or needed:
1. Purpose Specification: General statistical breakdown of how the DAC System was used
including:
a. Listing and number of incident records by incident category
b. Average time to close an incident record
c. Number of incidents actionable by DAC Staff vs. number of incidents non-actionable
and/or false alarms.
2. Public Safety Effectiveness: Summary and general information and evaluations about
whether the DAC has accomplished its stated purpose, including:
a. Crime statistics for geographic areas where the DAC was used;
b. The number of times the DAC was used to bookmark or retain data for potential
criminal investigations;
c. The number of times DAC Data was shared for potential criminal investigations;
d. Lives saved;
e. Persons assisted;
f. Property saved or preserved;
g. Wildlife/Natural Habitat saved or assisted.
1530151 Page 9 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 3. Data Sharing: How many times DAC Data was shared with non-City entities and:
a. The type of data disclosed;
b. Justification for disclosure (e.g., warrant, memoranda of understanding, etc.)
c. The recipient of the data;
d. Date and time of disclosure; and
e. Obligations imposed on the recipient of shared information.
4. Data Minimization: Describe whether and how the DAC System was used in a manner not
allowed under Section VIIIA of this Policy. Describe whether and how the DAC Data was
accessed in violation of this Policy and what were the consequences of such misuse?
5. Protected Activity Exception: The number of times DAC Staff certified use of the
Protected Activity Exception as provided in Section VIII B, and copies of each written
certification.
6. Dispute Resolution: A summary and description of the number and nature of complaints
filed by citizens or whistleblowers and the resolution of each.
7. Requests for Change: A summary of all requests made to the City Council for approval of
the acquisition of additional equipment, software, data, or personnel services including
whether the City approved or rejected the proposal and/or required changes to this Policy
before approval.
8. Data Retention: Describe whether data was retained in violation of this Policy.
9. System Access Rights Audit: Verification that individual user assigned access rights match
access rights policy for user’s designated staff role.
10. Public Access: Statistics and information about public records requests received, including
response rates.
11. Cost: Total annual cost of the surveillance technology, including ongoing costs, maintenance
costs, and personnel costs.
Independent Audits
The City Council shall provide for annual independent third party audits of DAC performance
and security. The auditor shall have full access to Internal Recordkeeping, the DAC System, and
the DAC Data. The results of the independent audit shall be made publicly available online to the
extent the release of such information is not prohibited by law.
Annual Report
The Compliance Officer shall prepare and present an Annual Report that summarizes and
includes the results of Internal Recordkeeping and Auditing, External Audits, and
Independent Audits to the extent the release of such information is not prohibited by law, and
present it to the City Council at a public meeting in January of each year, or at the next closest
regularly scheduled council meeting. The City Council should use the Report and the
information it’s based on to publically reassess whether the DAC benefits outweigh the fiscal
and civil liberties costs.
X. RECORDS MANAGEMENT

1530151 Page 10 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 The DAC Staff will be the custodian of records; responsible for retention (as noted in Section
VII), access to information, and responding to requests for information under California’s
Public Records Act.
DAC Staff must follow all relevant and applicable policies, procedures, regulations and laws.
XI. REDRESS AND PUBLIC INFORMATION REQUESTS
To the extent the release of such information is not prohibited by law, all protocols, public
records, including but not limited to use logs, audits, DAC Data, and any sharing agreement,
shall be available to the public upon request.
XII. SANCTIONS AND ENFORCEMENT REMEDIES
Contingent on the City Council passing legislation providing for a criminal penalty and/or
private right of action as a consequence of a violation of this policy, the following provisions
may apply. These provisions are noted by asterisks to indicate that they require further Council
action to take effect
Criminal Penalty*
Any Person found guilty of knowingly or willfully violating any section or provision of this
Policy shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable upon conviction by a fine of not more
than $1,000 or by imprisonment not to exceed six months, or both fine and imprisonment. This
Policy defines any violation of this Policy as an injury to any person affected by such violation.
Private Right of Action*
There is a strong, definitive relationship between PII and the individual in that PII belongs to the
individual (is considered their property) and is his/hers to disclose or to keep private to himself.
Any Person who knowingly or willfully violates any section or provision of this Policy,
including without limitation the dissemination of PII, shall be subject to a private right of action
for damages or equitable relief, to be brought by any other person claiming that a violation has
injured his or her business, person, or reputation including mental pain and suffering they have
endured. A person so injured shall be entitled to actual and punitive damages, a reasonable
attorney's fee and other costs of litigation, in addition to any other relief allowed under California
law. This Policy defines any violation of this Policy as an injury to any person affected by such
violation.
Violations of this Policy shall result in consequences that may include retraining, suspension,
termination, criminal fines and penalties, or individual civil liability and attorney’s fees and/or
damages as provided by California or Oakland law, depending on the severity of the violation.

1530151 Page 11 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft

 XIII. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this policy is for any reason held to be
invalid or unconstitutional by decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall
not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the policy. The City Council hereby declares
that it would have adopted this policy and each section, subsection, clause or phrase thereof
irrespective of the fact that one or more other sections, subsections, clauses or phrases may be
declared invalid or unconstitutional.

1530151 Page 12 of 12

January 15, 2014 Draft