Berkeley, California

Berkeley Votes 8-1 for Police Radio Encryption

In the birthplace of Copwatch, a progressive city council sided with police over transparency advocates

Key Facts

🗳️
Council Vote 8-1 in Favor
📅
Vote Date October 2025
📋
Compromise Offered Delayed Call Log
👁️
Copwatch Founded 1990 in Berkeley

The Birthplace of Police Watching

Berkeley holds a unique place in the history of police accountability. In 1990, Copwatch was founded here—one of the first organized efforts to train civilians in observing and documenting police activity. The organization pioneered the use of video cameras to record police interactions, establishing practices that would later become widespread with the advent of smartphones.

For decades, Berkeley scanner enthusiasts, journalists, and activists have monitored police radio communications as part of this accountability ecosystem. The October 2025 vote to encrypt those communications represents a significant departure from the city's legacy of transparency advocacy.

"Berkeley is the birthplace of Copwatch—the city where civilians first organized to systematically observe police. How did we get here?"
— Berkeley transparency advocate

Public Pushback Falls Short

In the weeks leading up to the October 2025 vote, Berkeley residents organized in opposition to the encryption proposal. Community members testified at council meetings, submitted written comments, and coordinated outreach to council members. Despite this organized opposition, only one council member voted against the measure.

Arguments Made by Encryption Opponents

📰

Press Freedom

Journalists rely on scanner access to independently verify police accounts and arrive at breaking news scenes.

⚖️

Accountability History

Berkeley's Copwatch tradition demonstrates the value of independent police monitoring.

🏠

Neighborhood Awareness

Residents use scanners to understand what's happening in their communities in real time.

🤝

Community Trust

Encryption sends a message that police have something to hide from the public they serve.

The 8-1 Vote

On October 29, 2025, the Berkeley City Council voted 8-1 to approve police radio encryption. The decision came despite testimony from residents opposing the measure and written comments expressing concern about transparency.

8 In Favor
1 Opposed

The near-unanimous vote surprised some advocates who expected more pushback from Berkeley's traditionally progressive council.

The Compromise: Delayed Call Logs

In an attempt to address transparency concerns, Berkeley agreed to provide a delayed call log—a record of police calls for service that would be made available to the public after the fact. Proponents argued this would maintain accountability while protecting officer safety and ongoing investigations.

Real-Time Radio Access vs. Delayed Call Logs

What Scanners Provided

  • Real-time incident awareness
  • Officer statements as made
  • Dispatch instructions and context
  • Response time observation
  • Immediate accountability
  • Unfiltered information

What Call Logs Provide

  • After-the-fact summaries
  • Police-written descriptions
  • Selective information
  • Delayed access (hours to days)
  • Retrospective review only
  • Edited/curated content
"A call log is not a substitute for real-time radio access. It's like comparing a security camera to a police press release about what the camera showed."
— Berkeley Scanner reporter

Why Berkeley Matters

Berkeley's decision carries symbolic weight beyond its immediate impact. If a city with Berkeley's progressive reputation and police accountability history can vote overwhelmingly for encryption, it signals that the law enforcement lobby has succeeded in framing encryption as a safety issue rather than a transparency issue.

🏛️ Progressive Precedent

Other progressive cities may point to Berkeley's decision as justification for their own encryption moves.

📊 Reframing Success

The 8-1 vote demonstrates how effectively "officer safety" arguments have been adopted across the political spectrum.

🔄 Compromise Model

The call log compromise may become a template for other cities seeking to appear transparent while encrypting.

The Copwatch Legacy

Copwatch was founded in Berkeley in 1990 with a simple mission: train civilians to observe and document police activity in their communities. The organization taught people their rights when observing police, how to safely record interactions, and how to support those being detained.

Copwatch Timeline

  • 1990: Berkeley Copwatch founded as one of first civilian police monitoring groups
  • 1991: Rodney King video demonstrates power of recorded police interactions
  • 1990s-2000s: Copwatch chapters spread to cities across the country
  • 2010s: Smartphone era democratizes police recording
  • 2020: George Floyd video sparks nationwide protests and accountability demands
  • 2025: Berkeley, Copwatch's birthplace, votes to encrypt police communications

Throughout this history, police scanner access has been part of the toolkit for those monitoring police activity. Scanner listeners could hear how police described suspects, what instructions dispatchers gave, and how officers talked about the communities they served. Encryption ends this form of real-time accountability.

Impact on Local Journalism

Berkeley Scanner, an independent local news outlet, has been particularly affected by the encryption decision. The outlet, which focuses on Berkeley crime and public safety coverage, relied on scanner access to provide breaking news coverage independent of police department notifications.

Delayed Breaking News

Reporters can no longer arrive at scenes independently of police notification

🎤
Lost Context

Radio traffic provided context that official statements often omit

Verification Challenges

No way to independently confirm police account of events

📉
Reduced Coverage

Some incidents may go unreported without scanner-based awareness

What's Next

Despite the decisive vote, some Berkeley residents continue to advocate for greater transparency. Options being discussed include:

Media Access

Pushing for credentialed media access to encrypted channels, similar to arrangements in some other jurisdictions

Improved Call Logs

Advocating for more detailed, faster call log releases with less police editing

State Legislation

Supporting California bills that would require transparency measures when police encrypt

Community Organizing

Building broader coalitions for the next time encryption comes up for review

Lessons from Berkeley

1

Progressive Labels Don't Guarantee Transparency

Political identity alone doesn't predict how officials will vote on police transparency issues.

2

Organize Early

By the time encryption reaches a council vote, positions may already be locked. Advocacy must start before proposals emerge.

3

Compromises Aren't Equal

Delayed call logs are not equivalent to real-time radio access—don't let officials claim they're maintaining transparency with inferior alternatives.

4

History Can Be Forgotten

Even cities with strong accountability traditions can vote against transparency when police frame encryption as a safety issue.

Learn from Success Stories

Berkeley's encryption vote wasn't inevitable. See how other communities successfully fought back.