states of america and to the republic for which it stands. one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. oh yeah. oh, yeah. yes. oh president lyons, i'd like to take roll. please do . commissioner walker here. commissioner benedicto here. commissioner janez, here. commissioner byrne here. commissioner yee here. vice pr elias, you have a quorum. also with us tonight, we have chief scott from the san francisco police department and executive director paul henderson from the department of police accountability. hello, everyone. welcome. happy valentine's day. i know it's so great to be here on valentine's

day. i know i specifically requested this day so that we could all be together on this special day. and the rain are makes it extra special. extra um, exactly. okay, so we have a pretty decent agenda, so let's get going and, um, hopefully get out of here at a decent hour line. item one weekly officer recognition certificate presentation of an officer who has gone above and beyond in the performance of their duties. sergeant anthony searcy, star number 1054. knight investigations unit. good evening. my name is jacqueline sellinger and i am the lieutenant assigned to the knight investigations unit. i would like to take a moment to express my gratitude to the president. elias, the commissioner, chief scott, and the executive director henderson, for the opportunity to recognize the exceptional work done by the men and women of the san francisco police department today, it is my honor to present sergeant anthony searcy, a member of my own team,

as a new lieutenant to niu. i have only known sergeant searcy for a short period of time. however within that brief period, i quickly realized what an exemplary investigator he is and that he is a huge asset to the night investigations team sergeant searcy is a 13 year veteran of law enforcement with almost ten years of experience with sfpd. he joined the department as a lateral officer from novato police department. he was recruited by his father in law, retired sfpd officer john ruggerio. his star number was handed down three generations from his grandfather in law to his father in law to him, and has been in the family since 1952. sarge sakai's brother, is also a police officer with the petaluma police department. his previous assignments were northern station, mission station. on patrol. he worked as a homeless resource officer and then a housing officer. he worked at southern station, midnights and

also as a field training officer before joining the plainclothes team. being a 35 car for the last five years, he was at southern station. his awards are he was he received were officer of the year, southern station. he received investigator of the year from the night investigations unit 2023, a silver medal of valor from saint luke's hospital for an ois in 2015, and several captain commendation awards. complimentary awards. sergeant sharkey became part of the niu after his promotion as sergeant in 2022, and i believe his work speaks for itself. niu is tasked with investigating serious violent crimes, which may also still be active scenes. when the investigators arrive. these unique situations require these investigators to think tactically and quickly on their feet, while also thinking strategically to achieve the best outcome possible for the

investigation. in these areas. i believe sergeant sharkey naturally excels as he is a great multitasker and he is also able to remain composed under the most stressful conditions. i reviewed several significant investigation conducted by sergeant sharkey, and that was thanks to his team, who chose to ten of his greatest investigate actions. so we call it success. ten greatest hits. um, so we don't have time to go over all of them, but we did select one. and here's a synopsis of one of one of his cases. how much time do you have? um, officer responded to a shooting in the area of post and jones, the victim was seated inside of his vehicle when he was shot from the outside of his car. sergeant sharkey identified the suspect of the shooting after reviewing over 300 items of video surveillance, identifying significant evidence and having it analyzed, analyzing call detail records, conducting

numerous hours of physical surveillance, and more, sergeant sharkey coordinated a pre-planned operation to apprehend the suspect and serve a search warrant on the residence during the operation, investigators conducted physical surveillance on the suspect. during that surveillance, the suspect got into a new vehicle and drove away from his residence. so sergeant sharkey continued to lead the operation, and the suspect was taken into custody. after a brief foot chase, the suspect was in possession of a loaded glock firearm at the time of his apprehension. additional evidence was also located at the suspect's residence during the subsequent search warrant service, served by sergeant sharkey. this is just one of many great investigations sergeant sharkey has conducted in his time at the nine investigations unit. not only is he a great investigator, sergeant sharkey comes to work with a positive attitude and always offers his assistance to anyone who needs it. he is reliable and i can count on him to handle any major

investigation. as i know he is able to adapt to any situation soon. i am honored to be your supervisor and love having you as part of my team. thank you sergeant sharkey for your hard work and dedication to the san francisco police department and this city, san francisco is safer due to your unwavering commitment to excellence. and with that, i present to you the certificate of recognition from the police commission. sergeant welcome. i'm not much of a speaker. i'll keep it short. um thank you for everyone that had something to say or something to do with nominating me for this award. it's much appreciated by virtue of our unit as my lieutenant has described, it's not often that we are in the spotlight. we handle a lot of our cases from start to finish and keep a lot of it in-house, and that's just by the nature of most of our investigations. and

sometimes it is good to have the spotlight on our unit. um as she mentioned, team uh, speaking of unit, this whole operation with we're small, it's maybe 12, 12 people. and any one of these cases, we do is not going to be successful without the help of the whole team. everyone always takes a part. if one of us has a case. sure. you have a primary or assigned investigator, but it's everybody. anybody from our night investigations unit could be up here receiving this. this same award. um i have to thank my family most importantly, my wife, my dad, my kids, my son who's not here. he's a little more energetic than most. uh, i can't imagine or i can't remember the last time i worked a regular shift without adding time on the front, time on the back, getting called in, having some case development. and every time i call my wife, it's, hey, can we get babysitting? and it's always win. what day? oh, today and win right now. and i, uh, i don't remember any time that she

ever said no. she's always made it work. um so with that, i just say thank you very much. appreciate it. oh, no. no, you got to stay up. come on and stay up here. not done. you're not done. now. now we get to talk to you. first of all, lieutenant, thank you for the introduction. that was a great introduction and giving us background on the sergeant. i think you did a really great job of telling his story and introducing him to us. so thank you for that. um, sergeant, i want to say, obviously, thank you for your hard work, but more importantly, i want to say thank you to your wife and to your family because, um, as you described and so eloquently, it's you're able to do your job because of them. and, you know, the missed dinners, the missed holidays, the missed night time putting kids to bed, all of those things are things that you've sacrificed in order to do your job and to keep the city safe. and i don't think that people really appreciate or recognize that, um, or. uh, the fact that,

you know, i'm sure some wives want to have their husbands home . so, um, so thank you to, to not only to you, but to you and to your family as well, and to your kids. so thank you for being the solo parent. most of the time, i'm assuming, um, it's a huge, huge task. and so for that, i commend you. and i thank you. and i appreciate all that you've done in order to allow him to do what he does. so thank you. product of another sfpd officer and only no, that's the only way i was raised. yeah, yeah, she's used to it. and you have really big shoes to fill. i was like, goodness, yeah. long road, 1952 1952 52. right. okay yeah. so great job. and thank you for the team for coming to support him. it's really nice and beautiful. i think to see just your colleagues there to always have your back and be there and be present. so thank you to all of you as well. commissioner walker. thank you. um, i echo your input, um, on

this president elias, the work that you all are doing. uh, thank you, lieutenant, for the great introduction. and thank you for the work. the nights are challenging, and, you know, the family being so supportive, the immediate family, but also the historic family. yeah. um it is so important. there's so many in our our ranks that have family that have been here for the san francisco for the city for decades. and we really appreciate that. the hard work you do, um, i'm sure that you don't get thanked enough so thank you for what you do. and i'm glad that we could honor you here. thank you. commissioner thank you very much. president elias. uh, congratulations, sergeant. um, you should feel very proud. and we're so glad we were able to recognize you, too. um, and as well as the work of the whole unit, i want to thank president elias. we've uh, for both bringing this program forward, but also making sure

that we go out of our way to recognize both, uh, uh, our station patrol officers. but also officers and units that the public might not get a chance to hear from or to know about quite as much. and thank you, lieutenant sellinger, for that intro. i wonder if i might call lieutenant sellinger back up to introduce the other members. uh, of the of the unit that have that have appeared here to support you tonight as well. great kevin, they're never going to come back again. we have ryan hart. he's the sergeant. uh, so they're all sergeants. um, heidi morales. mike, honey. kevin byrne, and it's his birthday today. happy birthday. happy birthday. adrian payne. i have valentine's day chocolate. the sergeants welcome to have one. have one for his birthday. but uh, thank you. uh, thank you to all of you for. oh, there's more. please continue. um. labson. jay labson, adrian payne and terrence saw. thank you very

much to all of you. from that investigations unit. it's, uh, we really, you know, this commission really appreciates the immense burden and the immense ask that we put on our officers, uh, particularly in the specialized units like, like the night investigations unit. and so you have our gratitude. uh, i've attended enough, uh, academy graduations to be familiar with. they always like to quote mike nevin, who says that your badge shows you trained you, and the name, uh, says, who raised you in your case, sergeant? it's a little bit of both. since your badge indicates the multiple generations, but i also think if i were to critique the sergeant nevins quote, is that the name also isn't just eurasia, but it's who's at home and who's supporting you and who's making sure that you're there and have that support system able to function. and you've done great honor to both. so congratulations. thank you. commissioner thank you very much to our president, uh, cindy ellis, first of all, i want to thank, uh, sergeant, uh, sharkey for all you have done here for

us. and i'm very happy that we got you from novato. so um, thank you for all your hard work and keeping us safe. uh, you're an asset to the san francisco police department, including the team as well. uh, i want to thank your lovely wife and daughter. happy valentine's day, as they would say, nowhere else. um continue your hard work. uh, i also want to thank the chief for bringing up this, uh, the weekly officer recognition. um, if we did not have this award, i'd. you know, there's. we would not have known about all your hard work and have yet done throughout the years here. so continue to your success. and chinese, continue your rise. thank. you. thank you very much. thank you. uh thank you, president elias. i just this came to be because the commission listened to the command staff when they met with them. so i just want to thank the commission for making this happen. um, to sergeant saki and the entire niu team. just for

the public. you know, these are these are the folks that when things happen overnight, late at night, the they respond and, you know, this is one of many, many outstanding, uh, case cases that the niu handles and just to mention another one, just to give you an idea, the shooting that happened on father's day at the embarcadero, it was these fine sergeants that were out there on father's day to get that started and actually take it all the way to an arrest and several arrests on that case. so they do great work. so i just want to thank you, sergeant turkey and your family. i know how hard it is when and he's always getting called out and has to work over and it's really hard on the family and you all make it work and your team makes it work and just we appreciate all the work that you all do, because it's not just this. it's over and over and time and time again. so thank you. thank you, chief commissioner yanez. thank you. uh president elias, uh, thank you, sergeant saki. uh, you know, your due diligence,

your attention to detail, it's in the dna. we can tell. and hopefully your son is going to join the squad at some point. thank you for it. thank you for joining our team. and uh, for keeping the night. uh, you know, as as safe as possible. thank you. really appreciate it, commissioner byrne. thank you, president elias. um, i just, uh, i want to commend, uh, you, uh, the night investigations. you you don't get to sleep in your bed while everybody else is, and, uh, i think that my wife worked a few night shifts when we got married, and i saw what it did to her, and, uh, i admire your adaption to being night owls or vampires or whatever. um, whatever. but i know it takes a tremendous toll on your body and on family life because i remember when my wife did it. so uh. uh uh, very much appreciated. and i think it goes underappreciated all the time. thank you. thank you. and since you know you're here already, if

you want to stay for the entire commission meeting, you're more than welcome. yeah, yeah, we work tonight anyways. yeah and public comment is that you can stay and you can talk for three minutes. public comment. well, thank you again. we do appreciate it. there's candy if you want some. thank you. all right. thank you. give it to the chief to give her. yeah. oh great. i can read the headlines now. commissioner throws things, assaults police officers. no doubt that was a thank you. it was a sinker. a sinker i great. now you're going to get arrested, kevin. for any member of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item one, please approach the podium. sergeant, so i want you to slip on. can i just

clarify something first? are we allowed to talk about. don't 9.07 um, this is only only public comment regarding the officer weekly. oh, gotcha. okay congratulations. staff and present. last. there is no public comment. all right. line item two, general public comment at this time. the public is now welcome to address the commission for up to two minutes on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the police commission, under police commission. rules of order. during public comment, neither police or dpa personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions by the public, but may provide a brief response. um, comments or opportunities? i'm sorry. alternatively, you may submit public comment at either of the following ways. email the secretary of the police commission at sfpd. commission at sf gov. org or you may write written comments to the us postal service to the public

safety building located at 1245 third street, san francisco, california, 94158. if you would like to make general public comment, please approach the podium. so i and many, many others oppose your plan to reduce traffic or any other enforcement of laws by our police cars failing to signal while turning broken headlights, etc. are violations in order to keep people on the road safe. you're banning enforcement of them is a tacit approval of making driving on our roads less safe. are you going to instruct sfmta to stop ticketing for expired registration since we're not enforcing them? why do you think two sets or two different applications of the laws are okay? but the main and most important reason this commission should not even be considering this plan is because it is a massive overreach of your authority. you are not legislators and you do not have the authority to make or unmake the law. don't like the law?

then go through the proper legislative process to get it changed and committing these violations is currently illegal. but if you ban police from enforcing them, you are effectively making them legal. this is a blatant attempt to bypass the legislative process. you're outrageous and knowing abuse of your positions will put our sfpd officers in a precarious legal and ethical position, because they are sworn to uphold the laws. and you want to instruct them not to enforce them. it is not the role of this commission to decide what laws are or are not to be enforced, and is certainly not your role to instruct police officers not to do what they took an oath to do, which is enforce the law and protect citizens. as usual, this commission has an inflated sense of self-importance and a vague notion of some type of wrong. they would hope to correct by grasping at a solution that will not only fail to solve the perceived problem, but will assuredly create a whole host of others for a police commission. you sure do seem to enjoy skirting the law yourselves, or at least attempting to. isn't it

a little hypocritical since that that's what you accuse sfpd of all the time? how is that possible? obstruction of justice charge from brooke jenkins sitting with you after your last overreach attempt. maybe you should follow the law. good evening. happy valentine's day. um, first, i just want to say it was really nice to see that family here. and that officer. and i'm super proud of our sfpd. um, and i also wanted to, uh, raise the issue of the pretextual traffic stops, which, uh, the, the california state legislature has declined to pass . sorry. is there something going on? uh, has has declined to pass legislation that prevents police officers from

making pretextual traffic stops. so this body does not have the authority to override california state law. this body is not an elected legislature and therefore our i think this body should stop. i understand you're trying to reach a collective bargaining agreement with the police. that would include mood waving or somehow include shooting, punishment for police officers. if they do enforce traffic stops. i don't see how you can do that under california state law. as it stands right now. and it would be lovely if you would stop trying to do that so that i wouldn't have to keep coming down here and asking you not to. so so with that, i will just say i would really appreciate it if you would not try to step into the shoes of the legislature, and if you would like to be the legislature, please run for those offices. thank you. good

evening. um i'm here, as always for my son, aubrey. aberra kassa, who was murdered august 14th, 2006. i am very emotional today. today day is my birthday and my son was murdered on the 14th. two so those two numbers means really a lot to me. the 14th is my birthday and he was murdered on the 14th, so i come here every wednesday just to ask for justice for my son. they left me with a dead body. i said i wasn't going to cry today, but . i'm hoping that you agendize

perpetrators coming forth. i shouldn't have to be here. i didn't even enjoy my birthday today. i just need you to understand. like the other families that was here with their children and families. and i'm not. but my only son. so i'm just asking for justice. and please to agendize people coming to, um. to help us with solving our children's life is. please i'm asking, is that tired. thank

you. for members of the public that have any information regarding the murder of aubrey abacus, you can call the anonymous 24/7 tip line at. (415) 575-4444. uh allen braddell. um, you know, there's no other agency in this state that has this pretextual stop policy. it was just failed in sacramento. sb 50, the poa is saying no. and you've got members of the public here saying no. and we have a speaker just before me who tragically lost her son. and pretext stops this. might prevent a future

tragedy like the one behind me. and it's a tool that police officers need. and it's insane. it's insane that you're shoving this down the throat of san francisco and the po. it's doing the right thing by rebuffing you . and i think you need to rethink your policy. mostly because of the person who spoke just before me. this is the tragedy that this, uh, policy will create. all right? it's the tragedy that will create and you have a responsibility to keep this community safe and leave your ideology at the front door before you walk in here. and that's all i have to say. thank you. commissioners. that is the end of public comment. thank you

. line item three consent calendar. receive and file action for 5000. donation to sfpd's wilderness program from the san francisco police officers association. safe streets for all 2020 three fourth quarter family code 6228. fourth quarter 2024 i'm sorry 2023 dgo 5.15 annual report to the commission regarding enforcement of immigration laws sfpd's um saps 1421 and dps 1421 month report. motion to receive and file second second. thank you, sergeant, for any member of the public who would like to make public comment regarding line item three, please approach the podium. there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is. yes. commissioner benedicto. yes. commissioner benedicto is. yes. commissioner yanez. yes, commissioner yanez is. yes. commissioner. burn. yes commissioner. burn is. yes. commissioner yee. yes commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter stone. yes. vice president carter auberson

is. yes. and president elias, president is. yes. you have seven yeses. line item for chief's report discussion weekly crime trends and safety concerns provide an overview of offenses, incidents or events occurring in san francisco have an impact on public safety. commission discussion. unplanned events and activities achieved described will be limited to determining whether the calendar for a future meeting. chief scott, thank you, sergeant youngblood. good evening, president elias and vice president carter, commission executive director anderson and the public. starting off with just the overall crime trends for this week. uh, still a decrease in overall part one crime by 34. that's about 2000 fewer crimes than this time last year. and the breakdown is a 13% reduction in violent crime and a 36% reduction in property crime as far as homicides. um, three this year. five this time last year, that's 40% fewer. and in terms of gun violence, we have a

reduction of three over this time last year, which is a 15% reduction. ghost guns and gun recoveries. we have 93 gun recoveries. uh, none to date, uh, year to date have been ghost guns. so that is a trend that's different from our past reports. um, a couple of incidents to report on. there were two nonfatal shootings resulted in resulting in two victims hit. the first one was on the unit block of turk street in the tenderloin. the victim. this happened on the 7th of february at 4:22 p.m. the victim was engaged in a conversation with a subject at a convenience store as they walked outside, the subject displayed a gun and pointed it at the victim. an altercation, uh, resulted in a gunshot wound to the victim. the victim was transported with non life threatening injuries and no arrests have been made in that case. at this point, uh, there was also a, uh, what the preliminary investigation determined was a self-inflicted

accidental discharge of a firearm. this occurred in the bayview at cesar chavez in kansas on the 8th of february at 8:30 p.m. minor injuries, non-life threatening, um, significant arrests to report. and this is the result of a federal investigation, um, that was started by the san francisco burglary detail. and this was a multinational investigation involving stolen bicycles out of the city and resold in the country of mexico. the federal indictment was filed last month and unsealed on this past thursday. and the federal grand jury indicted uh, san jose resident, uh, by the name of victor reno. victoriano romero, and charged him with conspiracy and other charges related to, uh, his scheme to steal high end bicycles from the bay area all around the bay area. actually uh, the indictment detailed at least seven bicycles valued at thousands of dollars each that were stolen out of homes in san

francisco and sold to, uh, mr. romero in san jose. uh, two other bicycles were stolen from homes in redwood city in april. sfpd of 2021 sfpd serves served a search warrant on mr. romero's business in san jose and found one of the stolen bicycles disassembled and ready to transport to mexico. the bicycle was returned to his owner, um. the sfpd would like to thank our federal partners and the fbi and the us attorney's office for their work on this case. and this is, uh, one of the fencing operations that we discovered that we were able to actually make some traction on and resulted in a really good, uh, federal indictment, a couple of other incidents, uh, to report there have been two blessing scams that we had a press conference on last week. so just a summary. for the past decade, the sfpd has been keenly aware and have been proactive and preventative in investigative measures of blessing scams,

which are basically bait and switch type of scams perpetrated usually against elderly asian members of our community. um and more details on two recent incidents, one in on january 23rd and the excelsior district, and one on january 25th in the mission district. the suspects were able to abscond with hundreds of thousands of dollars in jewelry and cash. the suspects approached their victims and usually speak about evil spirits that were harmed. them and their families, and how the victim can ward off these dangers. victims are told to bring their valuables, cash and jewelry back to the back to the suspect, where they are placed into a bag to be blessed. they are then told not to open the bag for fear that the blessing will not work. when they do open the bag, their belongings are gone. um, i just want to thank the recent victims for stepping forward to report these crimes. oftentimes you know there is guilt and shame when people are scammed in this matter and it's, uh, we don't always get these crimes reported. so i do want to thank the victims for reporting

these crimes. these cases are being investigated by our special victims unit and our previous efforts in investigating these type of scams have led to arrests of suspects, including in 2019, in which suspects were wanted for swindling over $180,000 from victims in san francisco. they were arrested at the los angeles international airport as they attempted to flee the country. um, i just urge anyone who feels like they've been a victim of this type of crime or any crime of to report it to the sfpd and to spread the word about these scams to your family, friends and loved ones. so to prevent from being victimized. and again, if, um, you happen to get an offer to have your valuables blessed, please, you know, report it, please call a support person and not share any of your valuable with anybody who is trying to do that. um, that is the first step into being scammed. so we want to also let

the victims know to stay be be wary of that, that the two cases that i mentioned are still under investigation. and um, as i said, our special victims unit, um, will continue to investigate until we bring those to resolution. another incident to report was a arson of a waymo vehicle that occurred on the 10th of february at 9:01 p.m. in the 700 block of jackson in the central district. a large crowds were setting off fireworks in the chinatown community for the lunar new year holiday. based on our preliminary investigation, it appears that the waymo vehicle stops around it. uh, vandalized and then set on fire by suspects who have yet to be identified. when police officers arrived at the scene, the large crowd fled in different directions, leaving the waymo vehicle a complete loss. a second vehicle was parked next to the waymo, and that vehicle also sustained moderate fire damage from the heat. uh, from the fire, from the waymo vehicle, the san francisco fire

department arrived and extinguished the fire. and, uh, again, this investigation is ongoing. there are some very good videos that our investigators were able to recover. and those have been distributed. department wide as we attempt to identify the suspects. in this case, if anybody has any information, you can. call (415) 575-4444. a couple of other incidents to report. uh. see just a couple of updates. these these were cases that the commissioners asked about last week. um, update on the carjacking from the swimmer that happened, um, in the central district. this happened on february 2nd at 5:49 a.m. when the victim parked at beach street and hyde. the victim was approached by two suspects who

asked them for a ride. when the victim proceeded to walk away, he was struck by one of the suspects from behind. the victim fell to the ground. his keys were taken and both suspects entered his car and fled. um. later that day, stockton pd notified that they had the vehicle and two possible suspects in custody investigators and coordinated with stockton pd process the vehicle for evidence and confirmed the identity of the suspects as being involved in the san francisco case. both suspects were arrested and um. the investigation, however, still going because there could be other crimes involved with these two individuals. um after action for the super bowl, we were, uh, deployed very heavily on super bowl sunday. there no incidents of significance to report. um, after a heartbreaking loss, our officers were out in large numbers after after the super bowl and there were no real incidents. the

crowds were were, were um, of course disappointed, but nothing to significant to report on that . and there was a stunt driving event that developed that on saturday night into sunday morning. about 400 vehicles were were crossing the bay bridge into the city. due to the quick response of our stunt driving response unit, who assembled the units were able to break up the group and actually turn them around back into the bay bridge. no injuries or issues were reported after these cars got back on the bay bridge, and when eastbound there was a fatal traffic collision on two 824 at 1:06 a.m. at 19th avenue, and crespi and the terrible vehicle traveling eastbound or southbound on 19th avenue past crespi avenue possibly lost control to the and rear ended a park unoccupied tow truck, causing the vehicle to catch on fire. a bystander attempted to assist the sole occupant of the vehicle, but was unable to enter the vehicle, and unfortunately

the occupant, uh, did not survive that. that crash. and lastly, in terms of the drug market efforts, just, um, kind of a year end recap, there were 998 cases. uh, these are for felony narcotic sales that were presented to the district attorney's office. uh, that was the highest number since 2018. of those, uh, reported that 867 of the cases were filed in 2023. the, uh. there were also. 135,000g of narcotics that were seized. and, uh oh, since the inception of the i'm sorry, the 135,428g of narcotics has been seized and a year to date, uh, or since the inception, 78,963g of fentanyl have been seized

year to date. in 2024, 14,000 and 249g of fentanyl have been seized and that is my report for tonight. thank you, chief vice president carter. thank you, chief, for the report. um, just wanted to follow up on two things i asked you about last week that that you weren't prepared to discuss then, but hoping that maybe you are now. so the first was a, um, vehicle pursuit on january 24th. your office followed up with me offline with some additional information on that, which i appreciate, but i just had one follow up question. so this is this occurred on january 24th. um, officers were pursuing a car that ultimately crashed into a muni bus and injuring the driver and an occupant. i just was curious if there was anything else that you could say about the nature of the injuries to the bystanders? um, i don't

actually have the nature of the injuries to the bystanders. so okay, maybe i can follow up with you offline then. yes. um, the other thing i asked you about last week was the new automatic license plate readers, is this something that you're prepared to discuss today? um, actually, we would like to we the request is to have that item agendized. are you talking about the cameras? yes yes. so the request is to have that agendize. that is a very, uh, probably extensive conversation, i'm sure. so could we have a preliminary conversation about it? i mean, what's agendized for right now is any incident or event occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety? so i think installing 400 cameras is an incident rare event. it's occurring in san francisco. and i think we both agree it has an effect on public safety. so it is agendized for right now. so are you saying so are you saying you don't have the information or you just don't want to discuss it? a report on the cameras. i just

have five questions. well, i'll try to answer your questions if i can. okay perfect. thank you. um, so can you just provide some details on the overall cost, how much the cost, the upfront cost of the cameras. um. you know, i actually don't have the exact cost of that. i just the grant is $15.3 million, but not all of that will be covered with equipment. some of that is personnel, some of it's equipment. and i don't have that. okay. um can you provide any details on how the data will be accessed? so who within sfpd will have access to the data generated by the cameras? if there is an alert, if there's an alert from the cameras on a vehicle that is either stolen or a stolen plate, or vehicle that's wanted in a crime, uh, that will alert the sfpd the concept is to develop a real time crime center that alert then is disseminated to officers

in the field to be on the lookout for that vehicle. so and so, who will have access to that? just just it will be disseminated to patrol officers. generally. it'll be disseminated once the alert happens. if we get this set up, as we would like to get it set up, it will be monitored in a crime center. and then that will be distributed to officers in the field. and then, uh. so what you described is kind of a pre-generated, i guess, be on the lookout for this license plate. and then there's a hit. but then what about all of the other kind of non-hits? i'm assuming that that data is also stored as well. um, the data is stored, but it doesn't. there there would not be an alert unless there is a hit on either a plate or a stolen vehicle or a vehicle that has been described as wanted in a crime. so could you look retroactively? let's say there's no hit. um, but

let's say, you know, a year from now there we get information that a license plate was involved in, potentially in a crime. could you go back and look at, say, every time that this license plate was, was every time there was a hit for it going back a year and track its movements throughout the city? you can look back retroactively and look for vehicles. um, i need to clarify exactly what the retention policy of the data is, but that's where i was heading. okay but that was your five questions. so i think what we should do is just agendize it. oh hold on, hold on, slow it down. we're going to agendize this for next week. chief, can you get a presentation together? um, and i'm going to ask the vice president to go ahead and make sure that the areas that he has questions are covered by your presentation. so if you could touch base with him to ensure that all the questions are answered? sure. i think some of this is information that the public would want to know. yes. thank you. that's everything for me. thank you. president. commissioner benedicto, uh, chief, just one question. i know

we talked about this offline a little bit, um, with the incident with the waymo, is the department planning on requesting any of the video that might have been taken by the numerous cameras and sensors on the vehicle as part of its investigation? i don't know if that's been done yet, commissioner. um but if that if that is available. yes. you know, the car was a total loss, but i would imagine they have storage like most, um, most platforms have storage where it's stored in the cloud, but i don't know if we have anything at this time. are you aware of any incident, even when not involving either one? uh an incident not directly involving one of the autonomous vehicles we have in the city where the department has, uh, received footage from the providers, whether that's cruz or waymo or one of the other ones. um um, i don't know that we have on criminal investigations. i know we have on, like, teslas that have been involved in crimes or victimize, um, but i don't know,

particularly if we've gotten anything from waymo, cruise, any of those. is that something we could follow up on offline? okay. thank you. that's all from me, commissioner yee, uh, thank you very much. there. uh, madam president, uh, the follow up on the waymo issue or the autonomous cars, um, on chinese new year, i was on washington street and there's a waymo stuck right in the middle of the street. and one move because the because of the crowd size crossing the street and what have you. my thoughts is that, um, they sat there for about five, felt like ten minutes, but it's probably more like 3 to 5 minutes. but it aggravate the community and the drivers behind it because it would not move. so i was wondering if there's a way for the police department to, i guess, uh, exclude the waymo's into into the certain areas where there's only a one way or one, um, one lane, because i

think it's a fire hazard. if and a safety hazard because if you can't get through in the cars, just sits there in emergency first responders where there's fire or police can not get through, and you got traffic all the way backed up. so just wondering if the police can, you know, contact uh, i guess the service provider for that to, um, provide some sort of, i guess. how would you say it? uh, you know, safety for us, because if you're looking for your fire department to come through and you're going on grand avenue, there's a waymo there. you can't get, you know, they see a crowd, it stops. and that's the same thing i felt we try to tell the car to move and you could not tell it to move. there's no driver in there. so that's that's my one of my thoughts on there. so we do through our traffic company. we do have have um representatives that try to work through issues like that with these um these companies.

and when those type of issues come up where the companies are notified of those types of issues, as we've seen that in other parts of the city where a vehicle gets stuck and emergency vehicles weren't able to go through. so that's kind of an ongoing discussion. when those problems arise, we do reach out to those companies and try to work through those issues. yeah uh, second thing is, uh, the super bowl was very sorry to hear the 40 niners did not win it. um, but how many officers were deployed during this? um, that super sunday, i guess they call it, um, ballpark. yeah ballpark. we had add um, probably i believe somewhere around 400 over 400 officers deployed citywide with the city as a whole. okay. all right. uh, thank you very much, chief. thank you, commissioner nunez. thank you, president elias. uh,

thank you for the report, chief. um, it's really promising to see that we have, uh, you know, a decrease in violent crimes. is there any particular strategy that you attribute this to? um, we still following our strategy that we have been doing for a couple of years now in terms of the, um, outreach to the most at risk people who are at risk of being involved in gun violence. so we are still doing the public , the community safety meetings to reach out to those people and their support systems. um, i think our homicide unit and our, uh, community violence reduction unit has done a good job of focusing on the right cases and right individuals. so there have been some, i think, some impact arrests, uh, warrants to try to get the guns off the street, those types of things. so i think a combination of things, it have has helped us, um, you know, without without a academic

study, i can only say that i believe that those things are impactful. um also, you know, i believe with our overall violence and we've identified through past research that there is really not a whole lot of people that are involved in gun violence in the city. so we try to focus our efforts on the people as i said earlier, that we know that are the most at risk. and i do think that has a lot to do with really keeping this at bay. and trying to reduce it seems there's better coordination. i know i've read a lot about some, you know, in our kind of bay area pursuits that led to arrests. um, but there doesn't seem to be a positive or a correlating impact on our clearance rates. is there a reason that you believe that those haven't improved? well i think the coordination is part of it. and you mentioned and i

didn't, but you mentioned the coordination. we have really good coordination with other cities in the bay area that we have, you know, connection on our cases, some of the east bay cities, and we work really well with them. um you know, a case of shooting may happen in one of those cities. and it involves people with connections or who live in san francisco, have roots in san francisco. and there's a really good network of communication there. so i do think that has helped our clearance rates, particularly with the homicides. uh, and some of the shootings that we've been able to solve. i think the other thing is just use of, you know, the nibin technology. that's the tracing, the recovered casings back to cases and connecting them with other cases, either in the city, in the bay area and that makes it a lot more, more, um. it has value to the cases in terms of solvability. we may connect a case in san francisco where it's a no hit shooting in that casing in this. these have

been real cases that have occurred like this. the casing may be involved in another shooting in another city. and that shooting may have a suspect. you know, that is being looked at. so it allows us to tie these cases together. and since we introduced, you know, the whole, uh, crime gun investigation center, i think it was 2018, we've gotten some results, some good outcomes from from the use of that technology and the crime gun investigation center. so it seems like we have a pretty good grasp, and we're trending in the right direction in some areas. does, um, does bite, you know, some of the noise that we hear that we read about that says that we're being constrained in any way, shape or form? um, the last time i was here, i asked a little bit about whether we have an idea for how we are going to determine when, where and how much administrative time people spent. i believe clearance rates are somewhat connected. to you know, the administrative the

write ups of these, uh, interventions of these, uh, pursuits. um, do you do we have a system right now still to be able to accurate determine how much time is being spent on administrative tasks that do not have something to do with advancing, uh, the prosecution of matters. if we're talking about patrol time, um, that's evolving. i mean, we can track many things like administrative time spent at the station, you know, if the officers code it right. um, as far as investigative time and the administrative time, we don't really have good systems to track investigative time we can track. you know, how much time was spent on the case? of course. but there there are investigative or administrative duties in in. investigations as well. i don't think we have a we don't have a handle on, you know, what those times would be patrol is a different story because the officers can put in the, uh, the computer aided dispatch system what they're

doing, like if they're off to the station writing reports or if they're, you know, taking a taking a whatever, some type of administrative time that that is tracked. um, and we're we're always evolving to try to get better at that. but in negative time it's much harder. and would you say, uh, that the way things are set up right now, we have a solid system that can hold officers accountable for doing their their work on the streets, on the beats, but also to be able to minimize the amount of administrative time that they're spending. um i believe the system will need some improvements. you know, um, and it's something that we've been working since the first staffing analysis, which happened for 2021, to really hone in on identifying administrative time and that's been, you know, a challenge in terms of really getting that to where it's a lot

more accurate. um, but that's a work in progress. right. and i remember when the report came out and you obviously see when these things are generated, we're speaking in an ideal world . right. um, but but it's been a few years and we and i know this question has come up more than a few times, and there seems. to be a lack of i don't know, enthusiasm to improve the system or, uh, we're not devoting the time to really determine, you know, if there are some outliers who maybe are not spending enough time, some that are spending too much time. um but i think it really does, uh, matter. right the leadership and guidance that you provide and that we provide, um, to make sure that people are spending the right amount of time and that we're scrutinizing it. and i know that, um, you know, it's not something that we're going to be able to solve in this conversation, but i would like to see or hear from you, uh, an

approach that we are piloting or developing, um, to be able to, to improve in those areas. right. because i know that, you know, overseeing some of the community policing dgo efforts, um, i know that there is a, a desire to do more community policing, and i see that there's been an increase in community policing, at least in the mission district, as a result of some of the changes that we've adopted. um but i definitely, you know, can see an improvement and could see a lot more of the time that's devoted to community policing. um, and, and the impact and the effect that it can have on clearance rates and better outcomes. so i really hope that we are looking at how we're going to manage, uh, people's time a little bit better. i know that, you know, having worked at df or under contracts for df, uh, and overseeing efforts at clinics, you know, every minute is

counted and, and in some cases it doesn't feel like that standard is across the board in our city. so i just this food for thought because i know that time is of essence and given our staffing challenges, you know, we want to maximize every effort . uh, but thank you for your time. thank you. thank you, sergeant, for members of the public who would like to make public comment regarding line item for the chief's report, please approach the podium. use the overhead. i just wanted to say too, about, um, this article that was in the papers about $0 being paid out, um, for unsolved homicides. and i was, you know, asking about it being i was told that it would be agendized this

month about finding ways to pay tipsters. and i was looking at this article from the same article and it says is, um, neither city officials nor their families are allowed to receive rewards, neither are those who help a case as part of their plea bargain or settlement. people with people wanted by the law are to turn over or to turn information. so there are criminal arrivals can go to jail . so i'm asking when you do agendize this and you do you find ways to pay tipsters as if this is here and people that come forth as gang members or whatever that may have known that my son was murdered. how are they going to come forth if they're not going to get paid?

how are you going to find ways to pay them? if you have this article saying that they are not allowed to get rewards, what do we do? how are we going to get our cases solved? how are we going to get our children's cases solved? how am i going to get my son's safe solved? we have people that want to come forth, but they've been in been criminals and they've been in gangs that want to come forth on my son's case. but i read this. so what hope do i have? how can we change the law? how i hope when you do agendize that you do recognize what i just read? finding ways to pay tipsters, whether they're criminals or not . hi there, alan burdell. um, just two quick points. uh, it's, uh,

we just heard that, uh, perhaps it's the lack of good leadership . uh, that's why we have a lot of, uh, desk time with the police officers. yeah, i don't think it's a lack of leadership. uh okay. i think it's the policies this department has placed on the police department that this commission has placed on the police department. and, um, a few minutes ago was mentioned that there's a lot of noise out there that the hands of officers are tied. i don't think that's noise. i think the hands of the officers are tied. and that's why we have prop e coming up. thank you. that is the end of public comment line item five, director's report discussion a report on recent epa activities and announcements. executive director henderson, thank you. uh, good evening. uh, we are currently at 82 cases have been opened, so far this year. uh, i

there's a tick up, uh, this time last year, we were at 79 cases had been opened. so cases are continuing to come in. uh, and the case loads are increased. uh, so far this year, we've closed 86 cases. um, and on the, on the docket for epa, we have 308 cases that are pending. again that's a larger number than we had, uh, this time last year by, uh, over 50 cases. we've sustained nine cases, and we've mediated, uh, one case this year. uh, we have 33 cases whose investigations have have gone beyond nine months. uh, of those 33 cases, 19 of the cases are cold cases. there are ten cases that are pending with the commission and 96 cases that are pending with the chief. the chief's office, uh, in terms of

this, this past week, uh, we received, uh, 15 new cases, uh, the largest percentage of the allegations for those cases were for neglect of duty, uh, from allegations that an officer failed to take required actions from the public. the full breakdown of all of the allegations, uh, are listed on the website in terms of the breakdown by district, uh, the largest district implicated from the allegations was park districts. and that came from a series of incidents, uh, involving, uh, a member of the public complaining, uh, and wanting to take wanting the department to take action. uh, regarding stolen documents, um, again, the and there were three of those cases or three allegations made. uh, and park, uh, the rest of the full breakdown for every district is also on the website. i don't

have an update on, uh, outreach this week, but for our audit, uh , the association of local government auditors, uh, just selected dpa to present. i'm sorry, i forgot to mention the award winning audit department. uh, was selected to present at its 2024 annual conference. so dpa will be presenting alongside the aurora, colorado, colorado city auditor, uh, and co presenting on an introduction to law enforcement auditing, uh, for audit purposes, uh, law enforcement agencies are still evolving and new practice areas for the audit. so that'll be the national conference. uh, in terms of the, uh, stop data audit, that we're working on, uh, as today, uh, the commissioners here, uh, you will all receive, uh, a brief survey,

uh, to obtain perspectives on the matters related to the audits objective, to make sure that we're meeting all of the conversations that we've been talking about. i know it goes back and forth. uh, but part of the compliance is we want to make sure that we're capturing everything that folks have said to us so far. uh, that should be distributed today. it's less than ten minutes. it will take you all to complete. but i just wanted to give you notice about it so that you knew that it was coming. if you haven't already gotten it. uh, we have one case in closed session this evening. uh, present in the courtroom in case there are any issues, uh, today, that need to be addressed while all the meeting is ongoing, is senior investigator, senior investigator brant bagian also present? uh, is chief of staff sarah hawkins and our director of policy, janelle caywood. uh uh, if anyone has any questions directly for dpa,

uh, or would like to get in contact with the agency, it's at sf gov. org forward slash dpa or you can contact us. at (415) 241-7711. i'll reserve my comments on the remaining agenda items for when those items are called. hypothetical in my throat. uh that. it concludes my report. champagne. champagne. anyone work. uh, i just like to end with a flare. that's thank you. thank all of this. is this

all because of the award winning audit? well i don't think i mentioned the award winning fellowship and intern program either, but since you brought it up. you're good. okay well, you're flare actually left. everyone speechless because there's no one on the dais, so we're going to go straight to public comment. members of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item five. please approach the podium and there is no public comment. line item six commission reports discussion and possible action. commission president's report. commissioners reports and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. no, no one needs to come monday to come. up. sorry, i'm going to ruin

this for everybody. thank you. uh, while i was away, i know i we received the language access, um, report for 2022. i appreciate that, chief. you followed up, uh, and had that submitted. uh, do you have a projection for when the 2023, uh, language access summary will be provided to us? i'll follow up with you on that so i can get that to you. and i do want to agendize. i know that i mentioned this before. uh, the language access dgo and the report to be able to have a conversation and possibly an action item around that. um for some time in march, if possible. and uh, that is actually my report. i see kept it short. we love having you back, sergeant. for members of the public, they would like to make public comment regarding line item six. please approach the podium and

there is no public comment. uh, the materials for the following presentations for line items seven and eight were not posted alongside the agenda as they were created after the posting and were not available to the police commission. these materials have now been disseminated to the commission as well as they are on the table on the side. if any member of the public would like to view them. line item seven. presentation and discussion on sapd and dpa sparks report fourth quarter 2023 discussion sapd and dpa. good evening, president elias. uh, vice president carter stone. um, i'll defer to sarah hawkins because paul henderson seems to be out. uh, chief scott and commission uh, deputy chief peter walsh, uh, of the administrator bureau. i'll be conducting the presentation, uh, with the assistance of officer duarte.

um, for the sparks report. okay slide. thank you. um, i know that you know the history, but just for the public, uh, the sparks resolution 2706 requires quarterly reports from both sfpd and dpa. uh, and we provide the police commission with policy, uh, development awareness. currently, um, the status updates on 19 dgos are actively going through a developmental process, and approximately i should say, 71 department notices are set to expire within 120 days. and again, this is for the fourth quarter next slide. one of the um, more important dgos, uh, that we wanted to update is 7.01, which is, uh, juveniles. um, it's been posted for the 30 day public review process. it concluded in december 13th, 2023. um, we

received 55 entries, uh, which wound up being about 40 comments and recommendations on the grid. seven of those were incorporated into the draft dgo, 14 were q and a, and not for uh, inclusion in the draft itself. uh, for require further discussion with in concurrence and 15 recommendations will not be included in the draft. the majority of those had to do with um policy changes that would affect law, which we obviously couldn't do, uh, most frequently was the, um, uh, adc ordinance. and then later on the ordinance, uh, the state laws that govern how we interact with, um, those under 18. uh, additional we did receive recommendation outside the public review process from jpd. uh, and those are being reviewed, uh, for concurrence. those mostly go to, uh, dealing

with youth who are under 12. so they cannot be basically criminally charged. and the question is, is what we will do with those? and there's been a back and forth on that. um, originally jpd said that they would take those cases and find placement. so that's one of the things that they brought up. um again, that's this tgo's schedule for concurrence on, uh, april 5th of 2024. for those of you who are not familiar with the process, we do these concurrence ever twice a month. um, and that's where that is in that line. so every month we're doing two concurrent is, um, sessions with the command staff of dpa and the chief. um, and so this is where that falls in line. uh, but it will be, uh, those meetings will be concluded, uh, before the, um, june 3rd, 2024, at the close of concurrence, sfpd and dpo will conclude a joint preparation of

that response, uh, for public review and police commission submission. and then the last, uh, obviously, as you know, is are submitting the lgo for, uh, the commission on. um several items were brought up, um, in reviewing the third quarter sparks report, um dgo 610 missing persons was added to the 2024 general order review list as a priority. um, staff at stage one of the dgo development 3.01 uh is considered in the 60 day stage one timeline. um it will inherit the recommendation grids as well as the request for new recommendation grids. uh, because it had been worked on prior. the police commission will then again determine an dgo 6.10. uh, where it should be assigned to a working group. um and then lastly, one of the issues i came up was dpa's, um, request for body camera viewing

directly into evidence.com. um, as opposed to us turning over that information often. and so there's further analysis being determined on administrative code 96 and or the, the office of contracting. one of the issues with um evidence.com which is run by axon, is that we gave we get one, um, kind of companion license that the da's office gets is our partner. it's like a partnership kind of licensing through them. so anything that would have to be piggyback on with oca and working with axon to, um, get dpa access to that and then we would have to obviously get to a point of how we, um, turn over certain, uh, or protect certain files, such as, for instance, juveniles, which is everybody is aware of, uh, dpa generally it's a court order to see those how we would protect those. so there's, there's a few questions, uh, going on with

that next slide. um this was just a i was to bring to everybody's attention. um again, i know that everybody's familiar with it, but just for the public , um, the dgos are proposed and, uh, to which ones are going to move over on a priority list, uh, the chief reviews that approves it goes to the commission president elias. and that's again reviewed. uh, we notify dpa and the dcs determine development timelines and written directives. notification notifies all parties. and then finally, um, with your help, uh, working groups and the chief's directive for sfpd and dpa, uh, to present those and then finally, we confirm a commissioner who will be in charge of that particular dgo, and then the working group

starts after stage one is complete. and then for the, um, dgo list for 20, uh, 24, the deputy chiefs assignments, uh, that will be used. i won't read through all of them, but you can see on this slide and the next we will have, uh, every dc has a set of dgo s that they will be responsible for. and moving those forward. if we go to the next slide, the list continues as um, and ac 30. uh, also does have a set out of, uh, dgos to work on anticipated priority, meaning which ones we think that, um, will move move ahead. uh, kind of lead the pack. um, obviously 3.01 is again, i believe, uh, being looked at 3.02 terms and definitions, as you know, i know combing through

all of these pages have seen numerous times where one time means something and one dgo and means something else in another dgo, and so that whole process will be try to align all that and get a common set of terms and definitions pursuit driving, missing persons has been placed on there. i know that that was a question. um, and then the sexual assault general order, we also have to go through the manuals. um, we'll be doing booking and detention committee policing, problem solving, crowd control and report writing. a lot of these have not been updated in a very long time. um and then lastly. uh. um. in december 27th, 23, uh, we solicited feedback on the chief's directive relating to working groups. uh, we received

ten dpa recommends a draft directed will directive will be updated accordingly. uh, police commission hearing to determine working groups from the 2024 general order review list and approve chief's directive relating to working group guidelines. um 2024 dgos. uh, the dc determined timelines will be sent to dpa and police commission office and the police commission. update. the question is can we update the 2706? uh. resolution? and the reasons are to provide a clear report guidelines for both sfpd and dpa update. uh, policy terminology review to determine what policy update information is most helpful to the commission and improve standardized communication regarding policy updates between sfpd and dpa. okay. um, again, kind of more a more formalized transaction of information back and forth. uh, sometimes things go one way from sfpd to dpa, and there's not

necessarily a timeline. and the dpa will send something back. so just something similar to confine that and make that more structured. um i don't know if you want to hear from dpa first or go into questions. uh, sure. do you know how to advance this or. yeah, we can slide or

something. okay. good evening, commissioners. chief scott and director henderson and members of the public. i'm janelle caywood. i'm the policy director at the department of police accountability. and i'm here to present highlights of dpa's fourth quarter 2023 policy work. next slide. can you see our slides? okay. next slide please. thanks. okay okay. in the fourth quarter, dpa research and provided 95 recommendations on three dgos, one department manual and four department notices. we're very excited to have worked on a draft of the serious incident review board. dgo uh, with sergeant john crudo

and retired lieutenant mike nevin. it's a great dgo. it's been in the works for a long time, and just as a reminder, it was a recommendation from the department of justice in 2016 that the firearm discharge review board be expanded to include more a wider array of incident s and also to look at tactics, not just to evaluate incidents based on a final final frame. analysis so as a d.o.j. recommendation, given the serious incident review board, dgo was the subject of a 2018 dpa sparks report. so we're thrilled that this is finally moving forward. uh next slide. also in the fourth quarter, dpa conducted a national survey and compiled best practices research regarding police vehicle pursuits at the request of the police commission, we presented our report on january 10th, 2024, and i was remiss last time, but i'd like to thank our

award winning interns, karen turner, sophia espinosa, katerina zheng, and natalie garcia for their work on that project. next slide in the fourth quarter, dpa provided performed extensive best practice research, developing a cutting edge policy on the law enforcement use of social media for investigative persons. so we analyzed the sfpd draft social media investigations policy, and we compared it to the us, doj, department of justice best practices guidelines. and we also did a survey of policies throughout the country from other police departments and sort of gathered up the best information from those. we also solicited feedback from stakeholders and conducted extensive interviews with surveillance, privacy and civil liberties experts, including the brennan center for justice, the aclu, the electronic frontier foundation. among others, and talked to them about, you know,

the trends that they saw, the dangers, the good things. and we've had some really we did some really comprehensive work on that. so we're excited to share the results of our research, which will be in this quarter. next slide. we have a couple of standing policy items that are important to us that were are worth reviving and making sure that the commission stays aware of them. in the second quarter of 2023, dpa recommended that we be. granted access to the body worn camera viewing platform that dpa uses that the department uses to facilitate timely investigations of ois s as well as public complaints of police misconduct. the platform has important features such as redaction tools and the ability to watch four videos at once. that would save our agency time and money, so we appreciate the department looking into those issues. it's an important topic that's near

and dear to our investigators hearts. so, uh, we look forward to hearing more. and finally, another standing item that we requested that sfpd prioritize completing the missing persons policy. and i know the president of the poa echoed the same sentiments a couple months ago before this body. uh, this has not been updated since 1999. on may 30th, we provided 17 recommendations, runs one. one of the recommendations that we really care about is that the policy be amended to inform officers that a missing child under the age of 18 requires immediate police action. currently, sfpd policy only considers a missing child to be exigent if the child is under 12, so we recommend that sfpd take prompt action for missing youth under 18 to protect teens from the dangers of the streets, such as illicit drugs, and also, importantly, human trafficking.

so thank you. that's all i have. thanks thank you. a couple of questions on, uh, 6.10. i just confirmed with my colleague, commissioner walker, we see this. the missing person wasn't on the working group list, meaning we had. we that wasn't one that we were going to do a working group on. so and i was told that the that dgo was finalized already and was good to go. that's why we moved it up . and here this is saying something else. the missing persons one, if i recall, when i don't remember what month it was, but there was a lot of public comment about missing persons and uh, the dgo and i was under the understanding that you wanted a working group for

that. i don't think that one was on the list because we couldn't do it bandwidth wise. we only had we only had three a year. we got right. i can update you if that's helpful. yeah. so that was the one that is has to be a priority. but i mean if the commission doesn't want to work working group that's fine. but i thought the commission wanted a working group on that one. based on the feedback that was in that meeting. uh, go ahead. mr. uh, this general order has been under revision, i think, since 2020. right. um i think in maybe april or march of 2023, we did receive an updated draft. we provided our recommendations on may 30th. um, i do understand that the sm responded to written directives to our recommendations, but we never received a copy of that. so at the end of december, we were told that the department was just going to go back to, instead of completing the dgo start it over again in 2024, and

then maybe do a working group. but when was it requested in 2023? no. why why would we start it over if i could answer your question, objectives with the policy development division with san francisco police department. so the 610 had gone as over 45 or 50 dgos, um, kind of from 2020, 2021, 2022 had all sort of, uh, come together in the 2023 revision list. so the 2023 revision list was huge. it was robust. so. and then when pd was developed or established in may and then finally got staff in august, we were doing an assessment on the dgos and where they were when the 610 came forward. it had had a new dc assigned to it, and the new dc had reviewed dgo 610. and then there was a different sm, and there were lots of discussions about not knowing where it had stalled out, not knowing where to put it. i do want to just cut

back to the discussion about working groups. i don't think in the presentation or anything we've provided that we said affirmatively that dgo 610 was going to go to the working group . dgo 301 right. says that the police commission as a whole has to vote, uh, by way of a resolution essentially based on the 2024 list, which of those dgos will go to a working group that hasn't happened yet. we just got the 2024 list approved. so based on the feedback that we got from the deputy chief, that was overseeing 610 and the smes and additional, actually we got new recommendations from dpa. um, the decision was made to add it to the 2024 list so that we could start it at stage one. all of the dgos that you've seen pretty much haven't necessarily complied with the stages as set forth by three 301. so they've started there's been a lot of work from 2020, 2021 on. and no clear definition. so again, we're just starting clean but not necessary early with the working group. so here's my issue. we have dgos from the 90s

that need to be revised. so for me i think and i don't know if chief we have to have a discussion offline. and i think deborah commissioner walker is on the same page starting this over at square one is not doesn't make sense given all of the dgos given the bandwidth, given all of that. so i don't think this is one we need to start over to get what we have. i've put it, let's put it forward, see where we're at and take it from there. but to scrap it and start over is a really is a waste of our time. i think, especially given all that's gone into it and the reason i prioritize it is because i was told that it was in final form. um, and since this has been going on since 2020 and four years later, i mean, we just don't have the time to deal with this starting over from scratch. so yes, the yes, commissioner, i don't think we would just scrap all the feedback. i believe the idea was to plug it into the structure of the timing of dgo

3.01. so so everything the feedback that has been worked on and all the policy recommendations been worked on. i'm not saying we throw that out, but we got to plug it into the structure of 3.01. so all the timing and all that, um, but we've already had that. i mean, it's been going on since 2020, so, so, you know, let's we if we have a final near final form, get, get it get it drafted, get it to us and let's see what it looks like. i don't want to put it back into the sort of abyss of where other dgos are. we have it if it's been finalized or semifinal ized, bring it, bring it back. let's see where we're at. and i don't know if we maybe we should just set up a call offline because again, i'm not it it doesn't make sense to start this all over again. you yeah. understood. you know, one of the things that we were grappling with, there were a number of dgos that were, um, had been worked on and i think

it was what we were using was it's under the old 3.01, which is we had to fix that. so this was one of those dgos, i think, uh, miss steve's has some comments on kind of how we got there. certainly um, so 610 i should start with 301 says that the deputy chief needs to basically approve each stage so it's not ready. it's not ready for public review. it's not ready for concurrence, and it's not ready for commission review. but according to the deputy chief who's over it right now, and the 301, for us to move it forward, we need the deputy chiefs approval. okay. but this it's already been approved by the prior deputy chief, right? no, not to move forward. so that's where it was stalled is we hadn't received in the stages. it was in the prior deputy chief had not approved it. and then a new deputy chief was transferred over into that, uh, bureau. and then when they reviewed it, they had not approved it. so there was discussions internally about how

to get it to recalibrate to, to actually comply with the current dgo 301 and their request was that they wanted to review it, be able to incorporate the, uh, recommendations thoughtfully and then feel good about the product that they were approving to move to the next stage. and what is the anticipated time frame for that? if we start it in 2024, our start date would be in february, and then, um, if you don't want it to go to working group, which is fabulous for us to know. um, then it is much faster. we've asked for a smaller, um, development timeline for stage one. so a 60 day timeline. um, i'm just waiting for deputy chief o'sullivan to provide me with the confirmation of the stage one development timeline. but we've set it for february date. okay um, my second question is, with respect to 2.07, uh, discipline process for sworn members. so this deals with the chief's hearings, where we have a backlog. so i'm not understanding because i'm

looking at the one page san francisco police department status report on the 13 dgos. and then i'm looking at the powerpoint, um, page two that you also provided. it indicates that 207 is ready to be scheduled for concurrence. and they're holding it until april 19th, 2024. so i'm confused as to why it's taking so long to have 207 move through the process. since reading the form, it indicates that the public review of this dgo was completed in august of last year. i'm sorry, october october of last year. i believe you're referencing the powerpoint for agenda item number eight. is that correct? about 207 or is this. that's the it's the next agenda item. yes okay. um, so again this is um, part will probably get into this in the next agenda item, we explain some of the challenges that we had with going through the policy development process. um,

it is again, there were a lot of internal agreements to not have timelines attached to developments. and then we were trying to, when pd was established, put new timelines into it to move things along. all right. i'll withdraw my question. thank you. commissioner benedicto. thank you, president elias. uh, a couple of questions. um. in, uh, deputy chief's presentation about the dpa getting access to evidence.com. i know he raised the prospect of dpa itself forming, uh, some sort of contractual relationship with evidence.com. i wonder if i could get a response from either director caywood or director henderson on if how viable that option is. is that being explored? um, in the status of that? um, i'm not sure i can look into it and get back to you. i think we were hoping to go through sfpd. okay. we need their permission to access their. yeah, exactly. i think even it sounds like even if, uh. and correct me if i'm wrong. uh deputy chief, that even if dpa were to get their contract with

evidence.com. so that their own user like the like the da, there would still be additional steps on the sfpd side, because like you talked about when it came to juveniles for example. is that right? yeah so i don't want to just i'll bifurcate them. so the first issue is we only get like one partner. and so that goes to the da. so they would form up on something like that through the contract that sfpd currently has . um and then with in that we would have to have um different guidelines on what could be access east. and the easiest one to point to. um, and when we have further discussions we can delve into it further would be something like juveniles. right. so if a complaint comes in the way the system works is we don't know, uh, if somebody goes into that until we actually audit it, even when we lock something out, we can't lock it out completely. um, to everyone. so there would need to be a discussion about, like, you know, i'm just saying this for this discussion, like notifying us we're going into

this case, here's the case number. then we would know and there'd be some kind of tracking. but that's kind of more on the technical side as opposed to them getting a contract and getting into that got it. so if they were able to resolve the contract issue on their side, uh, i mean, obviously there's still hope that it could be resolved through sfpd and dpa. but if the if the ultimate solution was that dpa ends up with a contract with evidence.com from your perspective, there technical issues that could resolve that would require resolution on exactly the limits of their access, but not that they not the existence of their access. right because what we don't want is a situation where they get a contract, they it goes to procurement in some amount and then they learn that they can't. the that they can't access sfpd's footage at all because those obstacles are insurmountable. okay i think i think i understand. so, uh, yeah, i don't, i, i don't i'll defer to the chief on whether or not access obviously is granted. but in the case that access is granted, they get a contract

when there's i think at that point the hurdles are different, the hurdles are are again, not being able to have cleats. all the redactions you see in a town hall, our team does that. so getting like at the question is going to be efficiency. so if we have to go in and redact it anyway and then sending and then saying okay, now you can have it, that timelines, i don't know how much would be how efficient it will be, but we would have to go down to those levels as we get there to, uh, at that point, that's very helpful. anything to add on that? okay. um, yeah 406. 10i think i agree with president elias and commissioner walker that we want this to move expeditiously. i did have a question for miss steeves. um, you know, i was fortunate enough to attend the onboarding, have have more familiarity about that process. if 6.10 goes into the phase one of the process, even

without a working group, you know, that's obviously it will proceed faster than with a working group. but even with a working group, without a working group, it can be pretty involved. correct in your estimation, even even assuming a february date to insert 6.10 in to the new 3.01 process, which i know there's some debate as to whether or not that needs to happen, but if that were to happen, would a vote on that be realistic within the calendar year of 2024? yes we could potentially get it to the commission, um, sometime in june or july. okay. that's that's helpful. one question. thank you for director caywood. i know there are times where this commission has taken action on goes outside of the normal process when there's something, um, you know, exigent that requires our attention. we did it in, uh, in 2022 when we readjusted our use of force policy in response to department concerns about reporting. we did it, uh, to we clarified our own

egos regarding, uh, preemptive use of tire deflation devices. is it the case? i mean, let's assume this timeline is feasible. and so it could potentially come to the commission in in june. looking at your report seems like the biggest concern is that that state law has that under 18. and the current dgo is under 12. if that's the most high priority change, in your opinion, is it worth doing a sort of out of band targeted change to the issue in that sense? or would you rather just wait and go through the process respectfully? i think it needs an overhaul. it's from 1999 and there is a penal code provision that i cited in the next agenda item that requires all law enforcement agencies with all their policies to be compliant with the to align with the post guidelines and federal guidelines. by 2012. and i don't see we seem to have missed that deadline by some margin. well, i think there was an attempt to implement to adopt some department notices to try to cover that gap. but i couldn't find any that were in effect to sort of modify the current dg. i

couldn't find anything else in the power dms. i reached out to the sergeant in charge of the missing persons unit to ask about about compliance with that statute, and a couple of weeks ago, and he didn't respond to me. so, okay, thank you very much. that's all for me. thank you. thank you. president elias. um thank you, miss caywood, for all the work you've been doing on the investigate of social media. dgo i know that that draft is going to, um, make it to us in a couple of days, hopefully. um but it has been a heavy lift, and so i really, really appreciate the fact that we're taking basically a dgo. that was, you know, somewhat haphazardly put together, um, and trying to improve upon our practices in that area. yeah. um, but my questions are a little bit more around dgo 701 uh, what is the timeline? what's

your projection for when those, when the public comment feedback and the additional feedback from juvenile probation department will be incorporated into the draft for us to view. i don't i don't know the timeline of that. i do know from i was the previous sgm several years ago for jpd that was the biggest issue was the under 12, and i can tell you that i thought we got to a point when i was still the sgm or not the sgm, the executive sponsor that they were going to take 11 and under, if they fit into the penal code section that lists five very serious crimes. um, and i think that that has kind of gone back. there was talk about contracting with some nonprofits s but it was very cost prohibitive at that time because basically you would keep an open room at, um, for instance, a nonprofit sit 24 seven every day that would have

to be ready for a very, very knock on wood, um, rare event. um, so i can't give you an answer on the jpd side, but i don't know if you have any further details on 701 on a possible finish. um. i'm sorry, can you clarify the question? it was just when do you think it'll. well, uh, when the draft will be ready for review? um, after incorporating the public comments and some of this information that jpds suggesting . sure. so it's scheduled for concurrence in april. um, that has to conclude within 40 business days, which takes it out to june. that doesn't mean that we have to have more than one concurrence meeting. we could conclude it in just one. so if we conclude it in april, after the concurrence meeting, uh, there might be post concurrence edits. um, there is no designated timeline on that particular part of it, but this because this has been actively under review for so long, i am

we could get it through concurrence. in april. um, move it through for um, chief's approval and then out by may day. um, that's if everything goes swimmingly at the first concurrence meeting. uh, fingers crossed, i you know, i will knock on wood that we will make that happen. uh, the reason being, obviously, i think it's been very clear that, um, i've been very invested in, in advancing our pre diversion and pre-booking program. um, uh, we had a presentation in june of last year, uh, and had a resolution from juvenile probation department in december of last year. um, you know, basically supporting the and supporting our department in, in launching this effort and at this point, we really are hamstrung by the fact that we don't have a dgo to be able to then create the mechanisms and the program design to advance our pre-booking efforts. and along with that, i heard, uh, tk

walsh mention, uh, something around the edc. uh ordinance and i know i've been very hands on with with making sure that we have cleared that hurdle and chief. correct me if i'm wrong, when we met in december, it seemed like that was no longer an obstacle. and i'm sensing that this. no, no, i think you coming up again. um, with all due respect, i think you misheard me. the. when we were talking about the recommendation grids and the public comment, there were numerous comments within there that people wanted in the policy. that would be against the odachi. so those were part of the 15 recommendations that we did not accept because they would conflict or be completely opposite of the edc ordinance and law. and now state law. so we're so the public says we

don't believe that you should call the public defender before your you interrogate the person. that would be a violation of a we're not accepting that recommendation within the dgo. does that make sense that makes sense to me because i understand , uh, that the public defender's office has been very hands on with this and has made it clear that they are on board with providing the consultation, just the recommendations from the public that would be contrary to both local and state law. we are saying we are not putting that in policy. okay, good. just jump in on one of that. so just to follow up most of those recommendations were really focused on the unnecessary conversation portion, not necessarily the public defender's office, but i think there is a lot of concern amongst officers that they aren't able to build any type of rapport with any youth at all because of the unnecessary conversation portion of the adc law. so that's really what the focus of the public comments and the member comments that came in during that 30 day review period . and we're clear, though, i

think that that when the law was written, the unnecessary conversation did not necessarily have anything to do with placement. this was about not activating an investigation and not coercing, not obtaining information from an individual who's not under arrest. um, and that that's how that law came into place. and i do not understand how we continue to hear from officers that that unnecessary conversation often means that we cannot do community policing, that we cannot engage with young people and tell them why they have been detained. i mean, it it is really unfortunate that that stance continues to be stated. yeah and oh, if i could please weigh in. commissioner, i the way that's interpreted to the officers in the field and to the department is basically no, no conversation, you know, um, from

, from hey, did you watch the super bowl this weekend or any of that type of thing? uh, that's the way we interpret that law. so there, uh, deputy chief walsh mentioned, like, you know, just build a rapport with, with a youth when they're in custody. and it had nothing to do with the investigation. our interpretation of this is that that's prohibited. and yet we still have publicly stated that we will be launching a pre-booking program and we are not able to communicate with these young people to avail them of this effort. if and when we get to that launch right, right. and that's i know that's separate from 7.07.01 because we're talking you're talking about the pre pre arrest diversion program right now. but that's one of the issues that we raised is how does an officer have those conversations. because i believe you do need to have some conversation about at least explaining the program.

but it does uh in my opinion. in our opinion, raise issues with the that law. and this is something that was brought up in the workgroups, um, and that i believe after many conversations with you, chief, and with your staff, um, that that that had been addressed first, that we had had the opinion from the city attorney's office to allow us to proceed and that we were folding. we're not folding, but that we would be working this pre-booking diversion program within the structure of dgo. 701 and if we if i hearing correctly that that the law will still continue to interfere with our ability to then, uh, move in that direction, does this then mean that we're going to have to create another dgo for pre-booking? is that what i'm hearing? well the pre booking diversion is not a part of 701. so we kept that separate. so we

can continue to move that dgo through while we worked on the diversion part of this. so it's currently not a part of i mean it's related to it, but it's not a part of dgo. 701i mean 701 covers all interactions with juveniles. how is it not a part of it? there is, uh, and correct me if i'm wrong, there is no language about the pre-booking diversion. there's language around discretion to, uh, not to hold charges in abeyance to the discretion that officers love to have and that we want to empower them with having. and if i'm correct, i mean, the last time i checked, welfare institution code six, two, six, you know, the law allows us to release a minor to, to themselves, to their parents, to a nonprofit. and the only policy that we have in place to interface with young people is 701. so every second that i've been in rooms speaking

with people about trying to create this program has been with the understanding that 701 would guide us and allow us to launch a pre-booking program. um, and that's not what i'm hearing now, chief, i think we're talking about i believe we're talking about commissioner, two different things. i mean, that the details of what a pre booking diversion would entail is not in 701. i mean, i do believe that when whenever we get it off the ground, there are specific protocols that are necessary for pre-booking diversion program for juveniles, including protocols for what the officers requirements are, who is going to approve it, how? how do we even get to the conversation? um . to offer pre-booking diversion that's going to be through a service provider or the officers who have first contact. i mean, those those factors are not in

7.01. i think we have a lot more, uh, dialog on this. i would love to agendize this. i know that 701 is slated to be agendized. uh, i'd love to make sure that we're also including the pre-booking conversation. um, thank you. for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item seven, the sparks report, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment line item eight presentation on the update of 14 specific department general orders at the request of the commission. discussion. uh, good evening, deputy chief walsh. uh, administration bureau commissioners, uh, director henderson, chief scott, um, we'll move into, uh, page two, which we kind of touched upon in the last item. um, so updates

since february ninth of the 2024 submission on um, for dgo, 1.06, uh, written directives received final edits and is routing that dgo for final signatures within five business days of receipt from the chief's office. uh, written directives will submit that to the commission office. um, the department will seek dgo 1.07, uh, rescinding order from police commission, uh, as well. um. 2.07 um, policy, uh directives unit received epa comments on that draft that uh, public review responses. this is ready to be scheduled for concurrence. um i think we touched again about it in on april 19th of 2024. and again, that's on our bi weekly or bi monthlies. and that's just where that specific one fell. um general order 6.14, the city attorney has responded with initial guidance, uh, of gravely

disabled. however, further clarification is needed. department will continue to work closely with epa and city attorney on definition criteria. the current development stage is post concurrence edits prior to police commission submission. there is no 3.01 determined timeline on once an sm and dpa confer on edits, the draft igo will be routed. i can add just a little additional on that. i'm working with kara lacy. um, uh, on on this particular case, um, we are going to be going out with a doctor recommended by the city attorney's. uh, so that we can build some scenarios off what the officers are seeing, uh, mostly in dmac and sit, uh, in order to bridge the training. right now, the training is done by dph, and it doesn't necessarily meet the way we would train our officers to handle, um, any of these type of cases under the new gravely disabled and how it relates to, um, 51 50s um dgo 9.06 uh, has

been updated to uh, updated the dpa stage two uh grid and the internal uh deadline on internal tracking documents as. um, i don't know if you want me to go through this. uh, this is kind of what we again, we've it's kind of a double up of, i see nodding. so i think we all kind of understand, uh, the way the system works. um, if there's any questions we can get to that, uh, during the next, uh, question period. um 2022 dgo development challenges. um, one was to transition from the former version of 3.01, where dgs had been under development for years. the former version had no timelines, which are all aware of, and they would change hands several times. uh, june of june 1522, the department reached an agreement with all labor unions on the requirements of dgo 3.01. the department cannot amend the language or process detail in the dgo without providing formal

notification to all the labor unions. uh, the dpa request of the department to add timelines or extensions to the process, less detailed in 3.01, cannot be implemented without amending dgo 1.03. uh 1.06207 and 614, and the overall status of the 14 dgos um two dgos are between stage two and public review one is in the blue four uh, blue folder, which is routing for submission. final draft to the commission. two egos have been approved by the police commission. three dgos are between public review process and concurrence. one potential extension request for stage one to be determined, uh, by leadership. one move to the approved 2024 general order review list. two egos between post concurrence and submission to the police commission office. one dgo moved to propose 2023

carryover forward list. uh, that was 6.1010. the missing persons one dpa proposal from 2021. um, they're unable to locate a record of the police commission initiation. um, per the 2019 3.01, there's no concurrent policy guideline for managing the timeline, uh, which we've stated to the chief that are outside of the current dgo and the draft is being considered as a resource for the 612 update. thank you very much, deputy chief. that was, uh, very helpful. um, a lot of my questions were about the 7.01, which i know commissioner yan has already addressed, uh, with miss steve. so i won't repeat those questions because, um, i thought that the last slide in particular, the overall status was, was very helpful to sort of see where everything was

globally. um i guess my question appreciating that it that not all the factors are in your control. so it requires a bit of prediction, but, you know, we have the breakdown of these 14. how many are you know, we have one the blue folder. we have some that are approved. um you know, we're having this meeting now in february. uh, what's what are these 14 going to look like? would you, would you hope by the end of the calendar year? well, let me turn it over to my crystal ball. commissioner there we go. like i'm not saying you have to commit to a date certain, but i think it's helpful for members of the public and the commission to see. sure. to see. so no, it's a great question. so the thing is, we're really trying to work on a 2024 plan. so we just received the 2024 list. and so now we're waiting for the dcs to determine the timelines for the 2024 list. but now that we have that we can actually look at the things that are carrying forward from 2023 and then give you all dpa and

the commission an idea of where every single thing fits in. the 2024 memo, which i can share with the commission at some point with the carry forwards, we did say kind of a tbd of where where things were, because , again, some are in the blue folder. so that could take um, you know, that could take a week . and then we know that once written directives get it, it's within five business days it'll come to the commission. so there are certain things that are at a, a point in 301 where it's really quite easy to tell you what the next step is and how long it's going to take. and there are some that are in these non-designated timelines where it's not that easy to tell you where it's going to go. so the short answer is, now that we have the 2024 list and we have this, um, a good handle of what the what's carrying over from 2023. we'd like to provide both dpa and the commission an idea of how long we think each thing is going to take, each dgo development is going to take. i think that'd be much appreciated. i think the once we i know there are some commission action on the on the, on the

2024 list that needs to be done. so i think once once we take that and once you've been able to do that, i think it would be helpful. i know when i before i was on the commission and working, uh, and trying to get those forward, it really was very frustrating that you'd see these long periods of no information or nothing beyond, oh, it's in the process. so i think that even in even if some of the estimates might be big windows or might be missed, i think i think it's helpful to provide that global overview that that you just discussed. as a point of clarification, we do not need police commission action on on the 2024 list, but we do need it on the 2024 working group list. got it. so we will be coming back for that as well. yes. thank you. that's all for me. uh, thank you, president elias. um, just one procedural question. i just i checked earlier with the commission staff and the materials that were just handed out to us. these were just provided today. is that right? yes. i received them today. and why? because i. because you all

did provide materials at the normal time. i'm just wondering why we're why we were given this stuff as we're sitting up here. so the presentations are just a presentation tool that gives you a global idea of what's in the report. the report itself was provided for you, um, in the time that was needed. and those are the required dates for submission. my understanding is that it has been common practice for other agencies to provide and for internal to sfpd to provide presentation, which, again, are just the presentation tool explaining the report. the report itself was submitted in a timely fashion. yes i yes, the report was submitted in a timely fashion. i think the ordinary course is to provide all the materials at the time you provide your report, but i agree as far as the brown act is concerned, you can provide them at the last second. it's just i think, more helpful for us and members of the public if we have some time to review in advance. there are some interesting things i saw in the in the powerpoint that i didn't catch in the initial report. um i

wanted to ask about a couple of the dgos on this list. um so maybe, uh, 1.061. 07i see here dpa's comment is concurrence was completed on april fifth. um. yeah concurrence was completed in april, and yet no extension of time was requested since then . what is the department's view on that? your questions about 106. yeah one i'm looking at dpa's chart. um, this thing um, and looking at the department's comment and then dpa's comment. so just if concurrence is wrapped up in may, what's the why hasn't there been an extension? we discussed this in october. the october 18th commission meeting as well. um, this is one of those dgos where when concurrence has concluded

and there was a dpa meeting that designated timelines within the simultaneous concurrent section of the dpo had concluded. so there were no more timelines. uh, then after for the meeting with dpa, um, it was kind of in this area where we were having, uh, edits, added, um, written directives, was seeking those edits from the chief. uh, we did receive them. and so now we have moved it forward to blue folder. but unfortunately for us, the 301 does not have, um, while it does have this, uh, area where for there, the chief gets final approval. it doesn't put a timeline on the chief for that final approval. so it is a non designated timeline. um okay. 2.07. so wait before we move on though. so it's your position. we won't be receiving an extension request then. for those it's in a blue folder right now. so it will be sent to the commission as soon as we receive the blue folder that signed off on. so right now it's in the section of the dpo that

speaks to submission to the police commission office. um, so within five days of us receiving it, we will send it over to the commission. okay. so we are on a timeline on this one. so no extension then for that. okay. so 2.07 the 30 day public comment period ended four months ago. um what's the what's the delay on that? are we in another place where there's no timelines as you understand, 3.01 so that was more of an internal administrative process. we've been trying to work with dpa to figure out the best way to jointly prepare our, um, comment , public comment period. so there was that. and then on top of it, we had new staff in pd, uh, with new assignments, so that i think there were several administrative processes outside of dgo 301, but separately, no request for an extension. really sits with there was no there's no real designated timeline for that period. so after public comment is you read 3.01, there's an infinite amount of

time. no, i don't read it as an infinite amount of time. i read it as the there's a 30 day period for public review, for public posting, and then after that there are several administrative processes that have to happen which impact the draft. that goes to concurrence. okay. i guess as i heard in dc walsh's original presentation, he talked about the prior 3.01 as a as a time when there weren't deadlines, i think is how he summarized it. um, which infers that now under the new regime of 3.01, this new 3.01, there are deadlines and i agree with that, right? i mean, the genesis of this started before the doj's report, but the doj's report in 2016 was a big part of it. where where it called out a big failing of the department is , um, just failure to revise its policies in a timely fashion. um, and as a result, having kind of a crazy quilt of department notices and bulletins and all of

these kind of, um, sub policies made outside of the public sphere, excuse me, made outside of the public's view, the dpa presented, you know, a year and a half ago on 25 languishing dgos. and then the hope was that 3.01 was kind of this new era where it provided a cookbook and it provided a step by step cookbook, and there was timelines set out for each step. and after one step ended, we started the next step. and i think for a while that was true more or less. um, there are certainly some growing pains in figuring things out in the first instance, but then all of a sudden we started getting these new interpretations of 3.01, like the ones we just heard that actually the dgo designed to set step by step process and concrete deadlines, actually did just the opposite. that it provides unlimited amounts of

time at various points. and i just don't know how because we operated under this dgo without that understanding, sfpd did not have that understand thing at the initial outset. so this is a new, uh, interpretation of 3.01 that we just have never heard before until the last few months . um, and i just it's just not how i read the words of 3.01. and it doesn't conform with the history and understanding. i think of the parties when 3.01 was enacted. so i do i'll just say again, we've had this conversation before. i do find that troubling, and i don't agree with the interpretations that you laid out. um, where in 3.01 does it say the dc can start the process over? sure. it's in section 30104 and it starts in the stage. i think. 30104c, i believe is where it starts to talk about stage one,

and i might be i can actually tell you specifically if i have it in front of me. and just to i know there wasn't really a question in what you were just saying, but based on the chronology of that, follow all of the dgo developments we have not actually been following the current 3.01. so so while there is a belief that we've been following the current 301 and that it has been seamless, the reality is we were not following those deadlines until really until establishment. so section 30104c uh, lowercase c says the affected deputy chief or professional staff shall assign an sm and shall determine development timelines. and once the timeline is developed, does it say that that the executive sponsor can then go back and restart everything because that's your position as to 610, i just don't know. my position is that the dc never actually set the development timeline. i see. so all of that process, that all of the development process there was there was development process with no timeline. i believe they were

following a former version of 301 where there was no deputy chief setting the deadline per dg oh, the current dg 0301. so the deadlines were sort of following a vague version of 301. gotcha okay. well that's helpful actually, as a clarification, um, question on this was an interesting thing. i saw in your new slides. this this was in the chart two as well. just a question on dto 614. um 6.14. um am i see that under the new state law. i'm sorry. i want to get the terms right. graveley disabled is a new defined firm. um, and it relates to a diagnosis under the dsm. are there concerns that officers will be able to diagnose those someone in the field. both. both because you

may or may not need specific medical expertise. and because it may require access to medical history that may or may not be available to officers and may be , um, you know, prohibited to because of hipaa. this is the conflict with dhs training. so if you look at dpa and fire departments partnership, um, they have a multidisciplinary group that we are not included in. so they can share that type of information. um, john doe over there has x, y, and z, um, let's say overdoses or whatever they are. um, and they will go ahead and be able to 5150 that person because we don't have that. that's why we're working with the city attorney's office and going out with the doctor to make what is observable, because i think we agree that we're not going to have officers looking up through the dsm and so that's why for this, it's taken a little longer for sfpd to come online to use the firm that is

used gravely disabled in relation to what we want to do. and so then, as i understand it, the goal is for officers, after being trained by medical personnel, to be able to know or going out in the field with a doctor. so we need scenarios to teach it, to teach the officers. um, one of the things that we are going out to do is have a doctor observe what is visible to a police officer that would qualify, not the doctor training us. for instance, on the dsm or something like that. right. so our training will reflect that observations that this doctor makes when he or she goes out on patrol, correct. in conjunction with the city attorney. yes. okay and so then the idea is that there won't be any need for access to medical history, or we won't rely on it when implementing this in the field. it will it will be the training that was informed by a physician's input. yes, but i

also don't want to cut off the fact that if there is a way to become part of a multi disciplinary group, for instance, if cit were to take up the more severe cases that they would be allowed to get that information as opposed to a street officer. so i don't want to cut off one of two levels. understood. okay. thank you. um, that's everything for me. thank you. so do 301 has stepped ups. like, for instance, the public review process. it'll say that 30 days are dedicated to the public posting process. right. so that's clear. a deadline and an iterative process. and then it will say that now you take the recommendations and jointly prepare a, um, a response to that, that is an administrative process. but there is no deadline. we do know that with these recommendations do come in. and if we want to actually consider them, they might impact the draft. so then you impact

the draft. you might have to revise the draft further and get it ready for concurrence packaging. that's an administrative process, but there's no defined deadline for that. so they're throughout doe 301. there's several of those instances where there's direction to take action. and it's not tied specifically to a deadline. i guess i'm just having a hard time believing on 207 that the public review ended in october, and it's now february, and the administrative process still hasn't been completed. i mean, that's a little i know. 301i drafted it, i drafted it with the chief and several key members in the department. so yes, very understandable. and you're right , there was i think we only received 2 or 3. and i believe we only received 2 or 3 public recommendation on that one. it wasn't solely the public process that took that time on top of it. we had new staff that was onboarding. we were training them with processes. we were trying to create administrative process for the joint drafting. these are things that we have to get going. so that because we're

also working with another agency to figure out how to jointly prepare these responses, even something as simple as what does the template look like because it has to be posted online. so the final product of that gets posted on the sfpd website. so it has to have a cover letter that looks consistent and standardized. so there are things that aren't just considered in doe 301, but it is asking for this product. but you're correct, the 207. we cannot say that that was only due to administrative process, because there were other things that were going on in terms of the pipeline doing assessment. it's bringing on staff, interviewing staff, then training them on. so there was there's all these other kind of sideline things with building up the policy development division, but you're absolutely correct. 207 by itself, i can't say that the delay in that was just just due to these administrative processes that don't have timelines, because for the one example you give about the templates and the public, um, process or public review process , we had a conference call with

the chief and the it team. this was last year chief. like yeah. and that's about the public portal. so that was about how the dpa can access the portal and the department can access the portal. what the portal looks like for members of the public. what that i don't know that it was covered in that call. what does the end product look like when it's posted on the website? what is the approval process for that public response that's going to be posted on a public website? so there's all these other things that dgo 301 doesn't consider. yes, there is now a portal for members of the public and members of the department to provide comment. but then what does that end product look like? so we covered that. we just didn't get to the what it looks like. and i think we left the conversation as the it department was going to develop it and then get back. but that was almost a year ago. um, yeah. somewhere around that time. yeah yeah. we've developed a process. it's not an it function. having a cover letter that looks a certain way, that's reviewed by, um, you know, concurrent staff or the chief. so that's a different process. thank you.

sergeant members of the public who would like to make public comment regarding line item eight. please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. next item please. line item nine discussion. discussion and possible action to adopt department general order 8.04 critical incident response team discussion and possible action. so we have sergeant art howard, um, to answer any questions. but before sergeant howard has any questions, there was um, trying to find it. there was a, uh. issue that was. yes. yes okay. you mind if i bring it up? so there was an issue that, uh, miss kay from dpr brought up in terms of, um, basically just

moving a sentence in the dgo draft and, um, let's see if i have it here. it's the very last sentence. it looks like very last. it looks like it got bumped out. it should have been in c and it was put in d by accident. yeah. so if you look at page two, um, at the bottom where it says team members may self deploy in all other circumstances that should be part of c and not d. so if you just move that up one line. uh yeah. exactly like thank you. thank you. is that. oh chief, that was the only that was the only, uh, change that is requested so we can answer any questions. i think this is a pretty cut and dry one in terms of. this has been up before. i don't see anybody on the dais. can i get a motion? go ahead. go motion to adopt general order 8.04. second for members of the

public, they'd like to make public comment regarding line item nine. please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedict. yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. commissioner yanez is yes. commissioner. burn. yes, commissioner. burn is. yes. commissioner. yee. yes, commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone. yes vice president carter is. yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes you have seven yeses. next item. line item ten. discussion of possible action to approve revised department. general order 3.12. department training plan for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. good evening. good evening. hi, i'm police captain sean perdomo from the training division, and i'm here presenting 3.12 the department training plan as outlined in this department training plan, it's used by the members to coordinate internal and external

training using the professional development unit. that's part of the training division to facilitate those ends. it's also meant to keep members up to date on what training is available, and to meet the department's ongoing need for training throughout the department. it great. any questions from commissioners? i don't see anyone on the dais. can i get a motion? motion to approve? general orders. is this 312333.12? uh subject to our labor negotiators and resolution. resolution 23 dash 32nd for members of the public who would like to make public comment regarding line item ten. department general order 3.12, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedict. yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner young. yes. yes. mr. yanez is. yes. commissioner. burn. yes, commissioner. burn is. yes. commissioner yee. yes commissioner yee is. yes. vice president carter oberstar. yes. vice president oberstar is. yes. and president elias. yes

president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. next item. line item 11. discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 6.20. member involved domestic violence for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. hello. hi i'm sergeant catherine winters with the internal affairs division. uh, i'm here as the sm for general order 6.20. member involved domestic violence. um, which describes the proper notifications made when there's a member involved. domestic violence incident. um, who needs to be notified by whom ? uh, what actions are required by our members as well as one of the additions we made to this is what we do when one of our members is the victim of a domestic violence incident, as well, seeing no questions on the dais, commissioner byrne, uh,

thank you. oh. excuse me. thank you, president elias. um uh, sergeant, um, with, uh, section k members, victim of domestic violence, paragraph one. um, so this is the victim of a domestic violence that works in the in the police department, is that correct? correct and then it says, um, the following. um, when, uh, so i believe it's the second sentence, when appropriate, the members victim commanding officer and consultation with the svu slash dv, um, bsu and the member should consider adjusting working hours, location and department cell phone contact. um shouldn't it be? shall i mean, if a if a member of the police department has a victim of domestic violence, uh,

shouldn't the, uh, commanding officer for, uh, shall consider doing that in order to ensure, uh, um, ensure the well-being of the victim of domestic violence? or am i missing something? um i, i think what our intention here is if the if the member doesn't want any adjustments, doesn't want that to be considered. yeah. um, we don't want to mandate that it has to be considered. again, this puts it in the hands of the victim as to whether or not they want those adjusts to be made or considered. if we make it a shall, then we automatically start treating victims in ways that maybe they don't all want to be treated, or there may not be a risk based on their location, hours or work assignment. so this allows it to be on a case by case basis. but i do appreciate your concern in that. but it it also basically gives the commanding officer,

uh, the ability not to consider and without taking input from the victim. um, i could kind of see how that can go both ways. in other words, that the, um, the victim may want the want want the adjustment of working hours, but the commanding officer is not required to consider it. uh, and that's that's also why the importance of including bsu, because oftentimes times in instances like such as this, uh, bsu often acts as an advocate for members was, uh, to work with, with either the members command or the command staff, uh, for assignments or reassignments based on needs such as this. um like i said, i just have a problem with it. i understand it's a very valid point that you bring up that the victim may not

want because because of the other people working around, but at the same time, um, it, it gives the authority, uh, to the commanding officer to just to say, tough luck and move on because it's only the word should. and i, i, i'm not comfortable with that. i think, i think it needs to be redrafted . and i agree with you. i missed that point about taking into account, um, the victim of domestic violence. but at the same time, if it puts the victim of domestic violence in an awkward situation and the commanding officer is not even required to consider it under the way, the dgo is written, i find that i don't find that acceptable. i'm sorry. okay. thank you. vice president carter overstone. uh, yeah, sergeant, i just wanted to ask you about commissioner burns point. so if we changed it to a shall and the

member victim did not want any adjustments to, uh, uh, to, you know, working hours, location, any of those things that if we change it to a shall it wouldn't require any adjustments. it would just require consideration taken of the possible city. and part of that consideration, as the dgo says, is consulting with the member victim to solicit their view on whether any of these adjustments are necessary. so it does seem as though changing it to a shall would have some benefits. as commissioner byrne pointed out, it would force the commanding officer to at least consider and consultation with the victim and bsu and svu, um, and it doesn't seem to have a downside of requiring any change, just that the change be considered. but do you do you do you see it differently? um, you know, as, as you point out, like if as long as we change just the should to a shall and leave that consider in there to leave open um, the fact that the victim can

be empowered to make that final decision. um, i just want to make sure that it leaves that open where if the victim doesn't want to be reassigned or their hours changed, or their assignment changed, um, that it's not a mandate, but it. yeah. as long as we, you know, if we put that strong language shall be considered and, you know, without, you know, confusing that it would be a mandate that anything be done if the victim doesn't want it to. so, yeah, that's how i think we would be mandating consider action but not any particular outcome. correct. um, okay. yeah. that's helpful that that's helpful. that's helpful. that was that was everything. that was all for me. yes um, the main question i have really is semantics. um was there any consideration on, um, and maybe there was and it would have changed, you know what we name our manual, but but, um, was there any consideration for calling this intimate partner violence versus domestic

violence just because domestic violence kind of connotates people that live in the same place, not necessarily always, but, um, and i know that, you know, the firm that has used at least with folks that work in that field is intimate partner violence. is there a reason why that wasn't used? um you know, this this was all done in, you know, one of the smes that participate in it was also the sme for the domestic violence investigations order and domestic violence manual. uh, and honestly, that topic hadn't come up, uh, in our discussions. um, i mean, as we're revising things and using the most contemporary language, i think it's worth considering. and it sounds like there are some other questions that we have. um, and, and i, you know, i think it's worth, uh, processing that through the semi. i would also maybe, uh, if you don't mind me kind of playing devil's advocate as a member of the lgbtq community, there are some who,

uh, exist in a sexual relationships which aren't intimate as as we discuss intimacy, kind of in the legal terms. so domestic violence is probably more encompassing, at least from a legal standpoint. thank. so do we have a motion to accept? are you making a motion to amend? uh, i'd like to make a motion to amend. okay we'll state your motion then. i like, um, in paragraph k of dg. 06.20 that the word should shall be replaced with the word shall and then i move for the adoption of 6.20, subject to the um, um, commissioner benedicta, uh, language. 2330 thank you, commissioner. um, all right. is there a second, second sergeant for members of the public who

would like to make public comment regarding line item 11, please approach the podium. there's no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes commissioner walker is. yes. commissioner benedicto. yes, commissioner benedicto is. yes. commissioner yanez. yes, commissioner is. yes. commissioner byrne. yes commissioner byrne is. yes. commissioner yee. yes commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter. yes. vice president carter is. yes. and president elias. yes president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. next item. line item 12. public comment on all matters pertain to item 14 below. closed session, including public comment on item 13. vote whether to hold item 14 in closed session. if you'd like to make public comment, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. line item 13 vote on whether to hold item 14 in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10 action motion to go into closed session on item 14. second. sergeant. all right. on the motion. commissioner walker,

how do you vote? yes, commissioner walker is. yes, commissioner benedicto. yes mr. benedicto is. yes. commissioner yanez, commissioner is. yes. commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is. yes. commissioner yee. yes commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter stone. yes. vice president carter is. yes. and president elias. yes president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. we are what up? commissioners, we are back in open session on line. item 15. vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 14 held in closed session. san francisco administrative code, section 67.10. action motion, motion to not disclose. with the exception of the factual updates provided in the minutes. second, any members of the public like to make public comment regarding line item 15. please approach the podium seeing none on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner benedicto yes. mr. benedicto is. yes. commissioner janez. yes commissioner janez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter. yes. vice

president carter is. yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. line item 16. adjournment. yay all right, happy valentine's day. happy valentine's day. happy valentine . good job >> today preezentation is a overview how to file a

compliant about the dpa. any questions can be e-maileded at sfdpa at sfgov.org. independent of the san francisco police department. investigating allegations of police misconducting recommending disciplineitary action to the chief police and police commission and suggesting policy provisions when not meeting 21 century policing practice. if you speens or witness police misconduct we have several ways to submit a complaint. file with dpa online asfgov.org/dpa or (indiscernible) in person at the office located at 1 south van ness on the 8 floor or any district police station. there are key pieces of information that anyone filing complaints

should provide, including your contact information, so we can ask for follow-up questions, the location, time and date of incident. officer name and star number, and specific details including words and actions by all involved parties. it is important to remember anyone can file a complaint and you do not have to be a witness or victim to initiate a complaint. this next slide provides a overview of dpa mediation division. mediation is alternative to dpa investigationing a complaint. the goal of mediation are improve the relationship between the community and sfpd. mediation allows both parties toprint perspectives that resulted in a complaint. may request mediation when you file a complaint or referred to the mediation team. mediation is voluntary for the person making the complaint and officer. both must agree to

resolve through mediation. unpaid volunteers not dpa employees trained and experiences in helping people resolve differences in a conductive manner. because mediation is voluntary, there is a greater chance of parties want to resolve the problem mutually agreeable fashion. not every complaint is eligible for mediation. cases can go to mediation include those involvingcocts and not (indiscernible) that concludes today's >> that i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of