Bay Area Police Chief Under Fire for Sleeping Arrangements and Out-of-State Residence
A troubling scandal has unfolded in the quiet community of Millbrae, California, just 15 miles south of San Francisco, where Police Chief Eamonn Allen has come under intense scrutiny for reportedly using the local police station as his weekday residence while maintaining a permanent home more than 600 miles away in Idaho. This unusual living arrangement came to light following an investigative report by KGO-TV, which revealed photographs of two bedrooms that had been set up within the Millbrae police station since Allen’s appointment. Property records confirmed that Allen purchased a home near Boise, Idaho in June 2023, raising serious questions about his commitment to the community he serves. When directly questioned about whether he was living in Idaho, Allen declined to comment, only deepening concerns about this unorthodox situation that has now escalated to a formal complaint filed by the city manager to the county attorney.
The ethical implications of this arrangement are particularly troubling as they appear to violate Millbrae’s Code of Ethics, which explicitly states that “no public employee shall use… city owned property for personal need, convenience or profit.” San Mateo County Board of Supervisors President David Canepa emphasized the gravity of the situation, pointedly noting that “San Mateo County is not a Holiday Inn” and stressing that public officials living outside the county or state must arrange their own accommodations. While there are legitimate exceptions for officers working night shifts who need to appear in court the following day, Canepa made it clear that these facilities exist to serve taxpayers’ interests, not as personal residences for public officials. The fundamental question at the heart of this controversy is whether Allen’s living arrangement represents a misuse of public resources and taxpayer dollars for personal convenience.
Beyond the ethical concerns of potentially misusing public property, law enforcement experts have raised serious practical questions about Allen’s ability to effectively lead the police department while living hundreds of miles away. Richard Corriea, a former commander in the San Francisco Police Department, described the inability to return to work quickly during emergencies as “ridiculous,” highlighting a fundamental expectation of police leadership. The role of police chief carries with it the responsibility to respond immediately to high-profile crimes, natural disasters like earthquakes, or other community emergencies—a duty that becomes significantly more challenging when one’s permanent residence is in another state. Corriea emphasized that an effective police chief should be deeply embedded in the community they serve, able to “experience the community at a granular level” and maintain a physical presence that allows for prompt response when needed.
The investigation has broadened beyond Chief Allen, revealing a potentially more widespread issue within San Mateo County law enforcement. KGO-TV’s report uncovered that at least six sergeants in the San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office also live out of state, with residences scattered across Idaho, Nevada, Texas, and Tennessee. Perhaps most concerning is the revelation that two of these out-of-state sergeants work on the bomb squad, positions that come with substantial compensation packages approaching $600,000 annually including benefits. This suggests that the practice of maintaining distant residences while holding critical public safety positions may be more pervasive than initially thought, raising questions about departmental policies and the overall accountability of law enforcement leadership in the region.
The case of Chief Allen represents a critical intersection of public trust, resource allocation, and emergency preparedness that communities expect from their law enforcement leadership. While the formal complaint works its way through official channels, the situation has already prompted calls for Allen’s removal from concerned citizens and public officials alike. At its core, this controversy reflects broader questions about the nature of public service and the reasonable expectations communities should have of their highest-ranking public safety officials. The physical presence of leadership during both routine operations and emergencies is not merely a matter of convenience but a fundamental aspect of effective community policing and emergency response planning.
As this situation continues to unfold, it will likely prompt San Mateo County and potentially other jurisdictions to reexamine their policies regarding residency requirements for key public safety positions. While modern technology enables remote work in many professions, law enforcement leadership presents unique challenges that may not be compatible with extreme commuting arrangements. The resolution of this case may establish important precedents for how municipalities throughout California and beyond balance the personal freedoms of their employees with the practical requirements of critical public safety roles. Whatever the outcome, this controversy serves as a reminder that public service positions, particularly those in law enforcement, carry special responsibilities and expectations that extend beyond the typical employer-employee relationship.
