The Brief

Los Angeles police officers used more than 1,000 less-lethal munitions and wounded six protesters on June 8, according to a state-mandated report released by the department.

The protests continued, along with the LAPD’s use of crowd control munitions, but the department has missed the deadline for several reports required by state law.

LAPD used less-lethal munitions for crowd control on at least four separate days in June — including the first “No Kings” protest on June 14 — and has not published reports on those incidents.

Court documents identify more than a dozen people who were struck by less-lethal munitions between June 9 and June 14. At least four were hospitalized for their injuries. The LAPD has posted video evidence of officers launching volleys of 40mm rounds and tear gas at protesters, but the only new report of crowd control weapons being used after June 8 is from an incident months later on Oct. 25.

The delay puts the LAPD in violation of Assembly Bill 48, a law that went into effect in 2022 to regulate the use of crowd control weapons like 40mm launchers, pepper balls and tear gas. All agencies that use those weapons for crowd control are required to follow up by reporting the reason the weapons were needed, how many were used and how many injuries they caused. The reports must be posted publicly to the agency’s website within 60 days in most cases, or 90 days if an extension is justified.

In a statement, the LAPD acknowledged that the department is “currently outside the 90-day public posting requirement,” saying the delay “stems from the extraordinary volume and complexity of incidents that occurred during that period.”

The department added that the forms will be posted to their website after internal review.

Hundreds of other California law enforcement agencies do not appear to follow AB 48’s reporting requirements, as LAist reported in September, reflecting what experts said was a lack of enforcement mechanism in the law.

In a statement to LAist, City Councilmember Hugo Soto-Martínez called on the LAPD to produce the reports required by state law.

“As we face federal raids that brutalize our communities without transparency or accountability, the City of LA cannot mirror those same tactics,” the statement said. “We must act with moral clarity and protect our residents by fully complying with disclosure laws.”

Critical Incidents

The LAPD has released video evidence documenting three “critical incidents” in which people were sent to the hospital after less-lethal munitions were used against them.

State law requires law enforcement agencies to release any video recordings of incidents where either a firearm is discharged or use of force leads to serious injury or death. The LAPD posts these videos and written descriptions of the incidents on their website.

Two of the released videos show police officers shooting people in the head with 40mm rounds, though AB 48 bans aiming less-lethal rounds at the head, neck, or any other vital organs. The third shows a protester shot multiple times by less-lethal munitions before he was arrested and taken to the hospital for a fractured finger.

One video shows a confrontation where Marshall Woodruff, an L.A. photographer and filmmaker, was struck in both the arm and the face by less-lethal rounds as LAPD officers let loose dozens of rounds toward protesters on June 14.

In video and written descriptions of the incident, the LAPD claims the crowd began assaulting officers by throwing objects, including rocks and bottles, leading to the use of less-lethal munitions. In body camera footage made public by the department, it appears at least one object was thrown toward the officers from somewhere in the crowd.

Woodruff later told reporters he needed “four or five” hours of surgery to repair damage to his eye.

That same day, police officers shot Jack Kearns in the back of the head as he was running away. The department says in written and video descriptions of the incident that he broke through their skirmish line. Court records filed by the L.A. chapter of Black Lives Matter allege that Kearns was not noticed by police until he was nearly a block away and moving in the opposite direction.

Blood can be seen on the back of Kearns’ baseball cap in the video as he asks officers to call a medic.

Kearns told reporters in June that he suffered brain bleeding and was in the hospital for three days.

A few days earlier, on June 10, Daniel Robert Bill was shot multiple times by less-lethal munitions before he was arrested and taken to the hospital for a fractured finger.

In body camera video released by LAPD, Bill is seen standing still in front of an LAPD skirmish line when officers began to push him back with batons and opened fire with less-lethal launchers.

The police department has been accused of using less-lethal munitions against members of the media after June 8, including the use of a 40mm round that struck Australian reporter Lauren Tomasi on June 9.

A lawsuit by the L.A. Press Corps and news outlet Status Coup has identified 12 members of the media, including Tomasi, who are alleged to have been struck by less-lethal rounds from June 9 through June 14.

None of those incidents have been reported as required by AB 48.

Concerns about potential misuse

The L.A. City Council voted last week to continue allowing the LAPD to use 40mm less-lethal launchers and tear gas.

LAPD Chief Jim McDonnell argued in council chambers that such weapons are a "de-escalation tool” that reduces the need of the department to use deadly force.

Some civil rights attorneys and other experts have told LAist they believe the LAPD’s use of less-lethal munitions against protesters has gone too far.

Adrienna Wong, a senior staff attorney with ACLU SoCal, told LAist in June that the indiscriminate use of force against protesters that month violated the law and the First Amendment rights of demonstrators.

“We have seen evidence that kinetic projectiles and chemical agents have been used indiscriminately, have injured people that have been protesting peacefully, are journalists or are in a crowd of people, and that seems to violate the express purpose of these laws,” Wong said.

Jeff Wenninger is a former LAPD lieutenant who led a unit that investigated all officer-involved shootings and use-of-force cases from 2013 until his retirement in 2024. He told LAist he thinks the LAPD has been too quick to use less-lethal munitions.

He pointed out that one of the two circumstances where less-lethal force is allowed is in response to a risk of serious bodily injury or death, which is the same as the requirement for lethal force.

The other allowed circumstance, according to AB 48, is to “bring an objectively dangerous and unlawful situation safely and effectively under control.”

Wenninger said the law requires officers to have specific targets when using these weapons, rather than indiscriminately deploying them to disperse crowds.

“ A lot of the articulation and the justification for [less-lethal force] being used tends to suggest to me that law enforcement agencies don't actually really understand the law,” Wenninger told LAist.

Long-term pain

While they are called “less-lethal,” crowd control munitions can cause serious injury or death.

Martin Santoyo has filed a lawsuit against the LAPD for allegedly shooting him in the groin with a 40mm launcher from just feet away.

Santoyo has said in court documents that he was “lawfully exercising his First Amendment right to protest and posed no risk of harm to anyone.” Then, Santoyo claims, an officer intentionally shot him suddenly and without warning “from within several feet.”

He required emergency surgery on his testicles after he was shot, according to court documents, and he said he has endured months of “tremendous physical pain.”

Will Horowitz, a lawyer for Santoyo, told LAist his client needed a month of recovery before he was able to return to work.

The city of L.A. can also expect to feel some fiscal pain when lawsuits alleging misuse of these less-lethal munitions make their way through courtrooms and settlement negotiations.

Santoyo’s civil lawsuit includes accusations of negligence, assault, battery and violations of his constitutional rights. As cases like his mount, so will the potential liability payments that have already been rapidly increasing in recent years.

As Los Angeles homeowners grapple with the expense of rebuilding after last year’s devastating fires, an L.A. City Councilmember is putting forward an idea that could lower some costs.

Councilmember Traci Park, who represents the Pacific Palisades, has introduced a motion to explore waiving part of the city’s portion of the local sales tax for fire victims who purchase rebuilding materials in the city.

The 1% of the local 9.75% sales tax that goes into the city’s general fund would be given back to consumers under the proposal. The waiver could apply to lumber, appliances and other rebuilding goods purchased within the city.

The motion, introduced Friday by Park and seconded by Councilmember John Lee, says: “The City should do everything within its power to alleviate the financial burden for these residents and businesses in order to facilitate their return and stabilize the Pacific Palisades community.”

Would it make much of a difference? 

Economists told LAist the proposal could help many homeowners mitigate the high cost of rebuilding, but likely wouldn’t tip the scales for under-insured, under-resourced property owners.

“It wouldn't hurt if it's very well designed and easy to use,” said Alexander Meeks, a director at the Santa Monica-based Milken Institute. “But I'm not sure if it's really going to tackle the scale of the financial challenge that survivors are facing.”

Meeks noted that the tax waiver wouldn’t lower up-front costs such as environmental testing, architectural design and permitting. And it may not help homeowners sourcing raw materials from outside the city.

Zhiyun Li, a UCLA Anderson School of Management economist, said the waiver could help some homeowners justify the additional cost of rebuilding more fire-safe structures.

“Homeowners must typically pay out of pocket to upgrade to IBHS+ standards, which are more stringent,” Li said. “The tax waiver could encourage upgrading to IBHS+ standards or investing more in mitigation, thereby reducing future risk and improving the likelihood of maintaining insurance coverage.”

What’s next for the proposal? 

The proposed tax relief would not be available to properties that have been sold since the fires started in January 2025.

The motion has been sent to the City Council’s budget and fire recovery committees. If approved by the full council, it would require the city administrative officer, the Office of Finance and the city attorney to report back to the council within 60 days on options for crafting a tax relief plan.

The motion calls for the report to consider factors such as how to minimize the burden of administering the tax relief, what documentation homeowners would have to submit and what it would cost the city to oversee the program.

Senate and House Republican leadership have resurrected a stalled plan to fund the Department of Homeland Security after a record 47-day funding lapse.

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., said in a joint statement on Wednesday that the House will take up a measure passed by the Senate last week to fund most of DHS except Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol through the end of September.

Republicans would then attempt to fund ICE and Border Patrol for three years using a party-line budget reconciliation bill that would not require support from Democrats.

"In following this two-track approach, the Republican Congress will fully reopen the Department, make sure all federal workers are paid, and specifically fund immigration enforcement and border security for the next three years so that those law-enforcement activities can continue uninhibited," Thune and Johnson wrote.

The agreement comes nearly a week after House Republicans dismissed an identical plan, refusing to take up the Senate-passed measure and instead passing a 60-day short term funding bill for all of DHS that had little chance of overcoming Democratic opposition in the Senate.

Johnson called the agreement a "joke" and President Donald Trump declined to publicly endorse the deal. Trump had previously resisted any package that did not include his push to overhaul federal elections known as the Save America Act.

"I think any deal they make, I'm pretty much not happy with it," Trump told reporters last week.

Democrats welcomed the agreement as in line with their pledge not to give ICE any more money without reforms after immigration enforcement agents killed two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis. But the deal does not include any of the policy demands Democrats are pressing for, such as a ban on masks for immigration enforcement officers and requiring warrants issued by a judge, not just the agency, to enter homes.

"For days, Republican divisions derailed a bipartisan agreement, making American families pay the price for their dysfunction," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., wrote in a statement Wednesday. "Throughout this fight, Senate Democrats never wavered."

Trump seemed to bless the revived plan earlier Wednesday, writing on social media that he wants a party-line bill to fund immigration enforcement on his desk by June 1.

"We are going to work as fast, and as focused, as possible to replenish funding for our Border and ICE Agents, and the Radical Left Democrats won't be able to stop us," Trump wrote.

Despite the shutdown, ICE has been minimally impacted because Republican lawmakers approved $75 billion for ICE through another party-line budget reconciliation bill last year.

Congress is on a two-week recess, but the Senate and House could move to fund all of DHS except ICE and CBP as early as Thursday using a procedure known as unanimous consent that allows the chambers to circumvent formal voting as long as no member objects.

Even during a recess when most members are not in Washington, this could be unpredictable, especially in the House, where many hard-line conservatives oppose a deal that does not fully fund DHS.

"Let's make this simple: caving to Democrats and not paying CBP and ICE is agreeing to defund Law Enforcement and leaving our borders wide open again," Rep. Scott Perry, R-Pa., a member of the ultra-conservative House Freedom Caucus, wrote on X. "If that's the vote, I'm a NO."

If a member does object, that could require waiting for another vote when all members are back from recess.

Claudia Grisales contributed reporting.
Copyright 2026 NPR

California clocked its second-worst snowpack on record Wednesday, a potentially troubling signal ahead for fire season.

It’s an alarming end to a winter that saw abnormally dry conditions briefly wiped from California’s drought map in January, for the first time in a quarter-century.

Though precipitation to date has been near average, much of it fell as rain rather than snow. Then March’s record-breaking heat melted most of the snow that remains. The state’s major reservoirs are nevertheless brimming above historic averages and are flirting with capacity, and a smattering of snow, rain and thunderstorms are dousing last month’s heat wave.

But experts now warn that California’s case of the missing snowpack could herald an early fire season in the mountains.

On Wednesday, state engineers conducting the symbolic April 1 snowpack measurement at Phillips Station south of Lake Tahoe found no measurable snow in patches of white dotting the grassy field.

“I want to welcome you call to probably one of the quickest snow surveys we’ve had — maybe one where people could actually use an umbrella,” joked Karla Nemeth, director of the California Department of Water Resources. “We’re getting a lot of questions about are we heading into a hydrologic drought? The answer is, I don’t know.”

State data reports that California’s snowpack is closing out the season at an alarming 18% of average statewide, and an even more abysmal 6% of average in the northern mountains that feed California’s major reservoirs.

Only the extreme drought year of 2015 beat this year’s snowpack for the worst on record, measuring in at just 5% of average on April 1st, when the snow historically is at its deepest.

“I think everyone's anticipating that it will be a long, busy fire season,” said Lenya Quinn-Davidson, director of the UC Division of Agriculture and Natural Resources Fire Network.

“Without a snowpack, and with an early spring, it just means that there’s much more time for something like that to happen.”

‘It’s pretty bizarre up here’ 

In the city of South Lake Tahoe, which survived the massive Caldor Fire in the fall of 2021 without losing any structures, fire chief Jim Drennan said his department is already ramping up prevention efforts.

“It's pretty bizarre up here right now. It really seems like June conditions more than March,” Drennan said. “People are already turning the sprinklers on for their lawns.”

Without more precipitation, an early spring may complicate prescribed burning efforts. But Drennan said fire agencies in the Tahoe basin can start mechanically clearing fuels from forest areas earlier than usual.

“That means we can get more work done,” he said.

It also means homeowners need to start hardening their homes now, said Martin Goldberg, battalion chief and fuels management officer for the Lake Valley Fire Protection District, which protects unincorporated communities in the Lake Tahoe Basin’s south shore.

Goldberg urges residents to scour their yards for burnable materials, create defensible space and reach out to local fire departments with questions. The risks are widespread — from firewood, wooden fences, gas cans, plants, pine needles — even lawn furniture stacked against a house.

“In years past, I wouldn't even think of raking and clearing until May,” Goldberg said. “But my yard's completely cleared of snowpack, and it has been for a couple weeks now.”

‘A haystack fire’

Battalion chief David Acuña, a spokesperson for Cal Fire, said fire season is shaped by more than just one year’s snowpack.

Climate change has been remaking California’s fire seasons into fire years. And California’s recent average to abundant water years have fueled what Acuña called “bumper crops of vegetation and brush.”

“Most of California is like a haystack. And if you’ve ever seen a haystack fire, they burn very intensely because there's layers of fuel,” Acuña said.

Like Quinn-Davidson, Acuña wasn’t ready to make specific predictions about fires to come.

But John Abatzoglou, a professor of climatology at UC Merced, said the temperatures and snowpack conditions this year offer a glimpse of California in the latter decades of this century, as fossil fuel use continues to drive global temperatures higher.

How this year’s fires will play out will depend on when, where and how wind, heat, fuel and ignitions combine. But it foreshadows the consequences of a warmer California for water and fire under climate change.

“This,” Abatzoglou said, “is yet another stress test for the future in the state.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.