the f.b.i. and the state in a log sheet that our i.d. text, make sure that they have this tract information for be able to pull up information in the future. the next slide is august for 2,339 live scans, and each livescan represents a transaction from the sheriff or one of the other law enforcement jurisdictions, like the juvenile hall or juvenile detension facilities as well as the parks. so these come from different sources. not all the men's jail or the jail.

even as you look over the june, it is a selective percentage. it shows an aggregate amount. level 1, level 2, and level 3. keep in mind these are not san francisco penal codes or charges. we went through those matches and determined which charges would fit through those catagories based on a list that ncic provides as different sections. ok. you're on the last slide there. this slide shows the level 3 reporting. one of the questions that came up in june was a charge --

charge 8525 one u.s. code. nobody knew what it was. i'm still not real certain, but it has to do with the rebookings when someone is already detained on another type of a charge and it needs to be added. this charge needs to be added. they relive scan it. so we identified it almost as a duplicate booking. commissioner dejesus: i am looking at numbers 1 and 2, but are there numbers attached? >> you will see the numbers attached here in a moment that shows the quantities. this just shows the aggregate charges so you knew which kind of charges were being evaluated for each type. commissioner dejesus: ok, thank you.

>> so oftentimes those are added in scent -- subsequent charges that made our numbers look larger. seduce and with the -- and with the -- commissioner dejesus: and with the rebookings. >> that's right. that response comes back to us. additional warrants are found and additional charges are added. oftentimes, what will happen is the person tells us who they are or tells the jail who they are, we process them. once the fingerprints hit the state and the feds, the response comes back with an f.b.i. number and a c.i.i. number, and then the i.d. tags take the added step of running those for warrants based on the f.b.i. number rather than based on the

name. in the month of july we had 75 new warrants. these were warrants that were not snone known. we also had 173 confirmed warrants. then more warrants confirmed for the month of august. an example of these were murder suspects or sex offenders or other charges that were added to this as the subsequent. and so that's -- i want to make sure you understood that those charges are added. commissioner dejesus: which slide are you on? are you on level three, the aggregate charges? >> those numbers are just in my notes. sorry. i can display those, too. commissioner dejesus: that's fine. that's fine. >> i was more explaining where

those warrants are coming from and where the additional charges for the rebookings happened. commissioner dejesus: no problem. >> next slide, this is for number 2, aggregate for 2, and 3, these are the numbers you are asking for. for the month of july, there are 76. 76, 63, and 10. i know the numbers of interest are of the level 3. of the level 3s, if you total those two months, there were a total of 19 charges there. of those, there was some additional research done on there, because we wanted to know what those numbers were, and there were 15 of those 19 had

felony convictions outside of san francisco. and 11-19 of those arrests also had arrests in other states. so those lefrl 3 convictions -- those level 3 con vicks -- convictions may have had other kinds of arrests. commissioner dejesus: were they misdemeanor misdemeanors? were they felonies as well? >> they were felonies as well. let's go to the slides mple the agriculture gates were -- the aggregates were sorted. this is based on each livescan as it comes across. i'll let you read the numbers.

i'll trip over myself if i keep reading these numbers. commissioner chan: i think it is self-explanatory. for muslims, arabs, and south asians, where do they fit within the racial catagories? >> that's a good question. it doesn't identify those, because with the livescan that we come across, that information isn't gathered. were so it doesn't necessarily show you what their religion is. >> would they booked under "other"? >> what are they normally booked under? >> that would be a question for the sheriff's office. they book those for us. commissioner chan: can we go to questions? did you have questions, commissioner dejesus?

commissioner dejesus: no. >> we can get through the diagrams, if you want. commissioner dejesus: i think you should go ahead and finish your presentation for those of us that are not as aware of this as mrs. chan. >> we look at the august numbers. these are similar sortings. again, if you compare these back to june, they are similar numbers. let's go to the next slide. these are the matches according to the gender. 14 female and 22 -- for 123 male. and then for the month of august

. one of the concerns is juvenile matches. the statistics there. we were able to gather that information this time a little better than i think we were last time. the juvenile sorts were july vs. adults, and then juvenile matches for august as well. interestingly enough, it is pretty consistent. commissioner dejesus: i'm looking at the matches by race. hispanic is large. 71%. do we know what their population is in the jail? >> i do not. commissioner chan: the population is like 20 -- >> actually, my next topic was the sheriff's office. commissioner chan contacted the sheriff's office about providing

the information for the remaining resolution and that kind of topic. the following slide provided the information from the sheriff's office and i have applied it as best i can to each of the resolutions as appropriate. the sheriff did notify us that the additional information from the sheriff's department in the last rort was not administratively feesible to gather at this time. so the additional information that we had available from june is not available. what the sheriff's office was able to give us was not the number of retainers, but the relief to i.c.e. i want to make sure there is a clear understanding that the number of detainers placed by i.c.e. doesn't necessarily mean those same people were actually released in that same month.

they may be released at a different time because of the fact that that person may need to serve out the sentence for whatever he was arrested for now in the same way that he might go for other facilities as well. he or she, i should say. >> and they have no way to calculate how many they turn over to us? is that what -- >> the they may have a way to do it. they weren't able to give it to us at this time. the next slide shows the number they released to i.c.e. in that month, and that shows 55 for july and 79 for august. again, these may have had detainers placed on them in prior months. so the two sets of numbers do not ed necessarily correlate. and then the final slide here

talks about the resolution, 6, 7, 8, and 9, and the sheriff's office told us it was not administratively feasible to collect this information at this time. commissioner dejesus: what is 6, 7, 8, and 9? commissioner chan: that is the ratio of the breakdown, age, gender, race, et cetera. >> and the police department does not have that information that is provided to us by them. the only thing we received is whether it is a match as it goes through, but we don't necessarily do anything with that information. president marshall: do you want to ask questions as he goes forward? >> i have my closing comments.

commissioner chan: sure, go ahead. >> i would like to thank the i.d. tags for gathering this information. while some were entering the statistics manually so we could pull the statistics out into electronic sheets, the other teches were keeping up with the regular workload of the information, and i estimated approximately 200 man hours spread between 18 personnel went into gathering these statistics in the course of the last two months. so thank you. any questions? president marshall: thank you. commissioner chan. commissioner chan: thank you for your time in putting this together. thank you to the chief for putting your personnel time into this. as we move forward we might reduce the frequency of this report so save the department time and money. i am mindful going forward we might not always pay as much time to this issue at the commission pleating.

-- meeting. i wanted to since we are in our third month now at s-comm to continue speaking with the commissioner. this is the second report on s-comm. it was activated on june 8, 2010. it looks like from our audit it covers a three-month period, june, july, and august, and we gathered as much information as we could. i do have a little outside information from i.c. e. i.c.e. was reported that 10 people have been deported from san francisco in the last three months due to s-comm. of those 10, six have noncriminal back grounds, and only one has been convicted of a serious crime. keep that in mind as we also look at these numbers, as to how many people have been deported. i also wanted to point out some 23459 national staff so we can

point out what's happening in san francisco with national stats. what we have here is a brief picture of s-comm. naturally s-comm had been implemented for two years. so we did this because i.c.e. was not releasing any information, but there were a couple national groups that sued i.c.e. to get these documents. they were recently released. stime documents showing what's happening at the national level. i found them through just googling. the vast majority of them deported through s-comm 30% are for lower-level offenses and noncriminal back grounds. so there have been 37,107 people deported in the last two years under s-comm that were noon noncriticals, level two and level three alleged offenders.

that's coming from a total of 46 thousand,943 people that vn -- have been deported under s-comm. california has the largest number of people deported. 26% of those deported have no criminal history and are not convicted of a serious crime. that's what we have at the national and state level. i want to highlight this as an interesting development because maybe we won't have s-com going forward. i issued a document called "setting the record straight." it is buried in their web site, if you want to look for it.

and on page 6 of this they acknowledge that this program is actually voluntary. they stated if a juries dix does not wish to activate on a scheduled date, it must notify its state aidentification to i.c.e. in writing. i.c.e. will request a meeting to discuss any issues and come to a resolution which may include adjusting the juries dicks activation date or removing the jurisdiction from the plan. a letter recently arrived from the states attorney general that if someone does not want to participate theg formally notify through the state and ice and a possibility of dee delayed deployment or opting out aulingt all together.

sheriff hennessy has requested to the state and the feds, and he's awaiting a response. so at some point we might not be in s-comm city but i think it is important that we continue to analyze this. plabe the next item should be on the ken sent calendar so we save some time. president marshall: commissioner. commissioner hammer: commissioner chan, obviously you are an expert in this area. so i want to ask you briefly. the numbers we got so far, do they match what you expect snd are there surprises here? >> the nubbeds at s-comm natalie are really quite different. -- the numbers at s-comm nagsly are real -- nationally are really quite different. i think there is a higher number at the national level because it has been implemented for a

longer period of time. i think i.c.e. is well aware that we're monitoring them. if we continue to closely monitor, i have a feeling that san francisco numbers might be different because of that. this is a program i.c.e. is getting funding from. they want to make it look good. the national numbers make it look really bad, frankly. san francisco is trying to make their image look nice, so that's my term knowledge of what i -- my personal knowledge of what i think is happening here. there are six with noncriminal back grounds. that's 60%. supposedly s-comm is to target serious criminals. so it is a problem. commissioner hammer: my second question is to the chief. if you have a position, i'm not

sure. do you have an opinion as to whether or not san francisco should try to opt out of s-comm. the mayor made it clear he's the only one who can determine that, so i think it would be inappropriate for me to comment on that. he would be the chief discusstive of the city. shoo i know commissioner chan is very worried at the national level trying to work in reforming the way this town functions, that those people they deport have serious offenses.

we found out 11-19 had been arrested for fel felonies. so at least in the san francisco universe, it appears that s-comm is being heavily taylor -- tailored. with that said, i have been encaged in this for several years, even before thinking of secure communities. so i am very concerned about the national impact. this is pose supposed to address real criminals as opposed to people coming here to work. havepl -- commissioner hammer: i appreciate that, chief. and the follow-up question i asked you, you mentioned 200 hours a month.

that's people working full-time doing this data. commissioner chan suggested perhaps less frequent reporting. can you come up with ideas to have less burden on the department? 100 hours a plo is -- month is a lot of hours. is it possible we could more narrowly tailor it? >> one of the things that will help is the deployment of a new ais -- avis system. the contract is in its final stages, and we're talking about six months after that to have the avis replace the cumpt avis. so about a year. commissioner hammer: i appreciate that. 23 first of all, i think it is

incredibly important stuff. having said that, i am always looking at a way we can be more sufficient. 200 hours when we're losing cops this year is a lot. i am asking if there is a way to somewhat narrow it and give it cost savings at the heart of the data. >> if i might make a discussion, it seems to me national primary concern is the number of level one, level 2, and level 3's that are being arrested. >> i don't think from this information we can imply there is disparity. we will see more hispanics here because there are a number of hispanics families impacted by the financial issue.

-- impacted by the population issue. my concern would be how many level 3s are being arrested, and what is the background behind those level 3's? i think we can cut down a a great deal of work. if we focus on the commission, we could report very regularly, and not spend as much hours. >> i would like to offer a suggestion. thank you, chief, for yir feedback. i would mete with gordon, if that's ok with you, chief, and come up with some ideas. >> ok. blash mash anything else? -- mack president marshall: anything else? commissioner kingsley: this is an important issue. >> it is an important issue to fwaur the information and what

to look at. >> i'm sure commissioner chan and you have tailored it somewhat, with you oh, -- but when there is something new, hopefully we can continue to tream line it. i do appreciate the number of hours going forward, and hopefully we'll be able to cut back on some of those hours. with the new avis maybe it will be easier to doom in on this type of information. the other states are important as well. commissioner dejesus: i think it is important that we do this. commissioner hammer: so they formally requested -- >> as a person that actually

responds to the containers from ice, he's coming from a place of authority and responsibility in making that request. >> we should also keep in -- commissioner chan: we should also keep in mind that the board was given the option to opt out on may 21 in a 9-2 vote. commissioner hammer: commissioner chan, you brought that to our attention. i want to commend you for that. it is something to say that your theory, which is probably true, which is that because we are closely monitoring it, it probably is stopping some nontrils criminals from being caught up in this, so i want to commend you for that.

chan tchan thank you for helping out. commissioner chan: thank you for helping out. president marshall: all right. i will take public comment on this item, item number 5. none. thank you. lieutenant we move to item number 6. >> item 6 is a discussion and possible action to issue police commission subpoenas in the matter of case numbers c09-015 and c 09-255. this is routine request for subpoenas in this matter. we just need to issue them with the commission's authority hyped them. -- behind them. >> i have had a meeting with both council prior to this evening's commission hearing. what we need to do, if the commissioners approve, is move

line item 6 floo line item 11, the closed session -- we can't do that? commissioner chan: although, i believe they should probably be in closed session. i think it would have to be. that's why i mention it here. commissioner dejesus: can they agree to have the subpoenas only heard in open session?

commissioner hammer: do the parties disagree? >> we have a number of issues that commissioner mazzucco asked to us bring up. mr. cummings would be happy to say we had this -- if i may, that we are sure it meets with his approval as well. commissioner dejesus: can we talk about case number with no names? commissioner hammer: certainly.