>> i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

>> president loftus, i would like to call roll. >> please do. >> president loftus. commissioner marshall, commissioner dejesus, present, commissioner mazzucco, present, commissioner hwang, present, commissioner melara. president loftus, you have a quorum. also present is chief of police gregory chief suhr. >> thank you, welcome to the november 4, 2015. police commission meeting. >> item 1 is general pmp. the public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. speaker shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or oc krshg personnel. under

police commission rules of order, during public comment, neither police or oc krshg personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions. presented by the public but may provide a brief response. individual commissioners and police and occ personnel should refrain however from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. public speaker: hello, my name is michael petrelis. i would like to use the overhead. can you stop the clock, please. i'm going to take an extra 20 seconds. here is a mug shot by a suspect arrested by police last week. i tweeted

to officer esparza and asked him why is this mug shot being shared on twitter? do you share all mugshots on twitter, and he said that all mugshots are public records. well, i know that, my question was what is the policy regarding mugshots. do you share everyones or do you just decide this fellow deserves to have his mug shot on twitter. so i filed a public records request for any documents related to the decision making process for deciding how mugshots will be shared. here is the full letter from the legal division. last paragraph says. "in response to your request

please advise that we can find no responsive records" the department does not have a written policy and a decision to disclose mugshots is discretionary. i think you need to have a written policy about mugshots and which ones get shared on cellphone media. it cannot be discretionary to officer esparza. he's decided today, this suspect has been in the news, so let's put his mug shot out, but for sally sue who was arrested for shoplifting, we are not going to put it out. no. that's not cutting it. we need a written policy regarding social media mugshots. the second item is the request i have made for the chief's calendar. as you know sunshine law in san francisco requires all department heads to maintain a calendar. i'm sure the chief does. what is not okay is that the legal department is

claiming that my request was not simple, routine or otherwise answerable. i have asked for the july, august and september calendars. those calendars should be on the chief's computer easily accessible to me. i should get them by november 6th. i hope that happens. however, i want the department to consider at the end of every month posting the chief's calendar online. we need to know how he is spending his days, who he is meeting with and of course redact out information that needs to be redacted out but we really neal -- need sunshine on the calendar. f fyi i will be challenging this.

>> thank you. any further public comment? good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening commissioners. i'm a project director with the central market community benefit district. i'm here tonight along with a number of property owners >> so i'm here tonight along with a number of property owners, representatives, business owners, etc from the sixth street area. i would like to bring to your attention some issues with gang and drug dealing activities and some of the issues seem to be related to some extent to the redistricting such that took place in july. so basically to give you an overview of what's going to on, there seems to be a little bit of improvement in

sixth area which is a -- notorious for drug areas. it does stop at the tenderloin district. we do see more coordination effort with central market community district is involved in help to clean up some quality of life issues and some of the encampments in the alleys. still we have a lot of crazy days around the first and 15th even on the first block. the main concern is people are going to be speaking on the deteriorating conditions and since august we do see a lot more drug dealers. more groups of the drug dealers stalking the sidewalk. more aggressive and in your

face behavior, more open drug use and with less cooperation when asked to move and particularly problematic. as of october, november of 2015, right now after meeting with the captain of the station, there is now at least patrol but we have not seen any foot beat yet. if there is bad news and good news in the community. bad news because of the level of the presence of a drug dealer, a lot of people feel unsafe. however we will be getting a couple of important new businesses coming in in early 2016 with a jewish center and of course a bakery opening on 6th.

i think they are going to be here to talk about their opening businesses. so really what we need, we need from you is really help make this area safe for these new businesses and the existing business as the residents of the second block of 16th. thank you very much. >> thank you. any further public comment? welcome, good evening. public speaker: i spoke with you 2 weeks about about profiling and made an appointment to go to oc office and showed up and the individual that was in the meeting scheduled an appointment and didn't show up for it. so, i'm back here again. but one of my main questions, concerns was about the gag order because i had an encounter with a police officer who pulled a gun on me and never said negative until he found a spot

to shoot me and he requested that i get on the ground, but he said it so low so i got this touch with the complaint office and they had a meeting with me and the officer and whatever was discussed i had to sign that i wouldn't share. i don't think that's right. i want the street beat to be there to give an account as to what happened and what was his explanation because i was under the impression the guy was a killer and he did everything he could to kill himself so when he shot me, he wouldn't have any recourse. he parked his car, where if he had a dash cam, he parked it where you would be -- wouldn't see it and he walked around to find a spot to shoot

me. then he said very low get on the ground. if i couldn't read his lips i couldn't hear him. i decided to drop the object before i got off the bike and then get on the ground. but anyway it was written up and we supposedly had a meeting and i wouldn't sign the paper for a gag order, so nothing has happened. so i have had 8 tickets since february of last year and this year and i'm thinking think profiling. i go to court and the officer is going to testify and tell the truth and nothing comes out of his mouth but lies. and what are you going to say. it's my word against the officer and the judge.

the body cameras, the only defense that i would have is that he wore the body camera and defends it and if i go to court even for a ticket. that's it. >> thank you, mr. upshaw. there are a number of investigators here from the office of citizens complaints who can follow up you with from the issues of citizens complaints. good evening and welcome. public speaker: this is proclamation. what mayor new some gave me. from 2010. i have from mayor lee 2012, i have two from board of supervisors. i wanted to give this to this fascist chief.

united states right now is divorce fascist country in the world. who made the country fascist? police. who made fascist country in germany? who made fascist country, it's made every night in the streets. he sends six people at night. it's very seldom for gis stapa and kgb. he sends six people to e evict 85-year-old person on the street. he killed me because to evict make

homeless a person on the street 85 years old. it's half of dead. maybe i'm walking dead. i will leave it to you, fascist. i hope god will punish you and your family and your children. fascist. thank you. good evening. any further public comment? welcome. public speaker: hello, everyone. my name is paulette. technical difficulties? my

name is paulett brown. i'm here for my son who was murdered august 14, 2006. to this day his case isn't solved. i'm outside of city hall bringing awareness to these unsolved cases which are now cold cases. it's been 9 years. next year it will be 10 years, a decade. the perpetrator of my son that murdered my son, thomas hannibal, paris moffat, andrew videau, jason thomas. anthony hunter. each one of these is walking the streets except for one. i forget which one is dead. paris moffat is getting out of prison. i don't know.

as far as i'm concerned he's getting out. thomas hannibal is still walking the street. he just had a baby. he's on facebook with everyone. london breed, mallia cohen and other people. he's murdered people and he's walking the street. who is to say he's out there walking around and i don't have my child. these guys should not be on the streets to kill again. they call it a mother's rage? yes. it's a mother's rage to heal. i am trying to heal. but i can't heal if there is mothers still out

there walking the street. what do i do as a mother. i bring it up. all of these other mothers who lost their children. i bring this back up where gave in newsom says i know who killed your son. what about probable cause? what about that? when is my son's case going to get solved. this is all i have left. you talk about mental health, yes, there is mental health. homicide is a mental health issue. this is what i have of my beautiful son. my beautiful handsome son. this is what they left me with. these guys are still walking the street and mothers like myself are still suffering. i have to go out in front of city hall and scream my voice out for

people to slam the doors in my face. >> thank you, ms. brown. anyone here or watching at home as to any information into murder of aubrey abrakasa. public speaker: i come to tell you that this crippled man in a wheelchair has been letting teenagers hang out in his house and get strung out on drugs and they do crimes. i left a message with captain at north beach station. they do the best they can but i don't know why. i called housing authority and let them know about the shooting at he was shooting at the building and

making threats to me and my daughter. they came and removed him out of the house. they are not trying to put this man out. the letters i keep getting from the manager. i'm going to send them to your office. they are nothing but sissy letters, just a slap on the wrist. this man needs to be put away or institutionalized. every month it's a same result. there is a child strung out on heroin and there part 1035. apartment 1030. the filipinos. i told the manager about her son. her son is supposed to be in jail with a gun. he's supposed to catch my child outside and put a gun in her face and

harm her. i'm not going no where. john made aware of this team but the management team he has working there, sometimes you need to replace them in order to get order back. plus the international bar, you may as well call that pedophile's paradise and there was a suspicion car while i was working at the polling place. there was african american males just riding through the north beach terrorizing people. i would like to know when it's going to stop. i was told by the manager about a meeting with mcdeft. the manager is slipping. she's not doing her job. felicia chang, maybe you need to take her to jail. but this man in the wheelchair, he needs to go.

>> to the extent that you want to report a crime, there are folks from the police department who you may want to follow up with. this is not the appropriate place to report a crime. >> no, but i have reported it and talked about it and sent letters and nothing is done. >> please follow up with them. further public comment? good evening and welcome. >> good evening, it's really an honor and privilege to stand before this commission. and my name is rabbi langer. i represent the haubab community. i represent this community with a bakery. our intent is to support the community and we need the help of the city of the

different bodies of the city that the police department that can give us support to make sure that it's not, that the area between market and howard is looked after, and that there is police officers on the beat and the streets are kept clean and we'll do our part. i'm very committed to this. i think throughout history jews have always started in ghettos. i feel it's a great opportunity for us to build community and hit a civic home run on positively six street. thank you very much. god bless you. >> thank you. further public comment? good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening,

my name is isaac yosu ef. i have opened the first kosher bakery in san francisco. me and the rabbi are working to create a nice jewish community and also we want to have the city to provide food and help the community. i would say, if you can hear i was born in israel. i have been to many places in the world, many third world countries but i have never been to a place like san francisco. what you see in the streets of san francisco, you don't see anywhere. in any third world country, the drug usage and the people who sleep on the street like that and the filth you see. forget about the drugs, but the

people. it's unbelievable. everybody that comes here, the first thing they tell me, i can't believe how many homeless in the streets. i wouldn't expect this from the city of san francisco and the strongest city in the world this is happening in the street. i'm not able to open my business later than 6:00 p.m. because it's too risky and nobody is walking by there. we do see a police car going there once in a while, but they drive so fast and everybody smoking crack and shooting heroin are next to them and they don't even notice. i understand you can't arrest everybody, but you can walk there everyday and confiscate and search every person and walk by foot there and have much more police and awareness. there are other things to do

than arrest everybody and hopefully together we will be able to make this city better. thank you. >> thank you. further public comment? good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening, i work for dh management . we own seven buildings on7 buildings seven buildings 7 buildings on 6th street. we see looted of drug dealing and loitering. these are our tennants, the rabbi and the owner of taboon. you can't walk outside. i have trucks at the pontiac. drug dealers are there all day long. we need police presence.

6th used to be cleaned up. we are asking a little concentration down 6th street. >> thank you. further public comment. good evening and welcome, clyde. public speaker: good evening. i live on 6th street. i don't see all of this gross activity. let me tell you, since the tenderloin station took over, there is a mass reduction. of course it's sporadic. it's going to happen. it's just the way it is. let's quick over reacting to that. my next point. i was very disappointed with all the deal in this city, i walk from embarcadero. we can't exonerate people abusing our own video. you read the article. people being incarcerated for 2 weeks when we had video on market clearing that

individual. c'mon, people. we have the technology, we have the knowledge. we can use video to incarcerate you but we can also use it to exonerate you. that was a very sad article. i don't know if you read it, chief. someone sent it to me. they said, did you see this ? i said no. let's be fair. we use the video to incarcerate. we don't use the video to exonerate him. why don't we get lawsuits. yeah, that's why we get lawsuits. new york. how do you want to get in to what happened there? i don't even want to talk about that. you talk about a gross homicide committed by a cop on video. he was right there and shot the kid in the back twice. he was stupid. right on video. commissioner bratton, suspended without pay. murder. have a great evening.

>> thank you. further public comment? good evening and welcome. public speaker: good evening, my name is -- i am from -- living in the hotel. like for one or two 2 years from the alleys more -- [inaudible] the fighting every night and every morning -- i live with my kids. the building they have all this right now. very worse from the mission to howard. you can't walk up to 8 or 9.

this last week, one of my tennants around 70 years old and he's coming around 9:30. one or two black guys hit him and then very worse, i come from -- i work from nepal the embassy. i want to recommend the traffic school need more police power. police need the bad people. my recommendation. my recommendation i have a lot of

expert, i have a limited english but my country from nepal. i work with military. the need more power police and more power for police. this is a beautiful city. thank you. >> thank you, sir. further public comment? good evening and welcome. public speaker: my name is

dorey. i own the laundromat. we have been here 40 years. there are drug addicts in the laundromat. we have already called the police. we have cameras. i hire the person to open the door and close the door. the fire department says it's illegal and there is a penalty if we lock the door and customers are inside. so what we did, is we installed some kind of i don't know what you call that, automatically locks the door. whoever wants to come in and they lock did door right away. the problem is these people come in everyday. in fact my helper was assaulted three times with a

knife by these drug dealers. we have signs all over the place. i appeal to you to help us. clean that street. clean that area. it is the entrance from south san francisco from the airport and go in there. what can we do about that? it's everyday. i see people lying there, sleeping on the tables, drinking on the floor and sitting down on the ground. so, i need your help. we really do in that particular area. thank you very much. >> thank you. is there any further general public comment? good evening and welcome. public speaker: i'm also a sixth street merchant. i have been here 8 years now. it's pretty bad than when i came there. there is more drugs, more

violence, i have had staff assaults. i have had a knife pulled on me. i have had a couple -- we get assaulted and harassed. i came here before and you said we would see foot beat and we did for a while but it stopped. the calling system does not work. we can call a million times. it's not going to make a difference. we need the cops that know the merchants that walk there and understand what's going on there. it's got to be the same cops. when the new captain comes in, it can't be new cops. it has to be the police that are there all the time. we need the police that know the people there and the

stores. i know you must have hundreds. how many cops do you have? it's hundred dollars -- hundreds and hundreds. i know you can afford to put cops there. there are worst streets in the city. put cops there. we have to start thinking outside of the box. there is a lot of new merchants coming in there. somehow we survived 8 years. there are other restaurants for a couple years. there is 5m project that is going to bring retail. the neighborhood is going to change. so we have to start adapting to that situation. the place needs to be policed. that's it. >> other public comment? good evening and welcome juicy. public speaker: hello, my name is

juicy. we know that san francisco and washington d.c. is going through a big gentrification. gentrification is putting people outside. people need to understand that when you put people outside, they are going to live outside and i heard from npr they are moving drugs, crack, heroin and speed and meth, all is going to be taken away from the police department and to department of public health. it's a public health and not a police issue. you know people in jail cannot even pay to get out. it's time to look at things different. it's all about house. if you knew where people were housing wise we would know where people are at all times and they have a permanent address. people are doing the same thing indoors and outdoors of these hotels and apartments. we could not blame anyone.

animals know how to live on the land. humans need to know how to live on the land. we could not let the rich take the housing. as you see the citizens voted to stop letting people use their apartments as hotels. that is what is happening in the city. when people don't have anywhere to stay, that's where they stay, they are going to use the restroom. that's because people in this country are not concerned about humanity. where are people supposed to live. people have been here no more than 3 years. i have been here 26 years. it's better than it's been. trust me. i moved from san diego where there was -- a little bit more hospitality and

habitat. 9 years ago we voted for president barack obama. happy birthday to my sister. now here we are with this gentrification. gentrification is nothing but a subliminal way to say you don't belong here anymore. we can't have people come here and where are they going to live and what are they going to do. i hope this is a message and we all must make this a better place and better country. >> thank you. is there any further general public comment. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. please call the next line item. >> item 2. reports and announcements. chiefs report discussion review and recent activities. >> good evening, chief, maybe you can start by addressing some of the concerns with 6th street.

>> we've been working with sixth street. it's gotten better and the redistricting annexed. six street north of mission to tenderloin station to get beat officers. south of mission street. so that will keep going as commission knows. we have four academy classes going. a lot of police officers are coming out over the next several months and a several amount will be delegated to sixth street. so, on other matters, there have been two, for halloween night was relatively quiet. a lot of neighborhoods got real real busy, but i think we made one felony arrest. we did have a robbery that took place earlier on halloween. there was

some mention about a chase that took place. that robbery took place on judas street and the officers located the vehicle in the bayview. they knocked over a cushman and they ended up making the arrest. all three suspects were taken into custody. one police officer was hurt and the property and the car was taken as evidence and then will be eventually returned. we did have a shooting the day before halloween in the fillmore. two victims were hit. i believe that the doctors believe both will survive. there were neighborhood disputes. so our gang task force unit looking into that. very sadly this morning, two 12-year-old boys were hit in a crosswalk on bay street. the driver has been booked for driving under the influence. both little boys are in very serious

condition at general hospital today. on a much lighter note, i was at the major city chiefs conference the week before last and met with director davis of the cops office and provided him with a copy of our 24th century task force on policing and our cops office will be posting that on the national website hoping that others follow suit. >> can you just remind, i'm sure not everybody knows what this president 21-century task force was to just remind folks what it was. >> president barack obama led this task force, the philadelphia police department and over seeing by director davis at the cops office came up with 58 recommendations and i believe 90 items and the department task

force was in agreement with every item and contrary to what we've agreed to with the school district in our mou where police officers will not participate in any discipline in schools and there is a residency requirement that has been found not to be something that city san franciscan will have here so we can hire a broader number of people to get the diversity we want. other than we agreed with every item and most of them are in place. people can find that on our website and the cops website. additionally we had our first halloween party at the public safety building. we made it a great safe day for young people and that's something we will do annually. that same day, bayview station

participated in the first pl kids game. they made the playoffs and won and have advanced to the city championship at the kez ar stadium this weekend. also the first of the citywide barbecue is recommended by the safety initiative kids took place october 17th at the portrero hill rec's center and that was followed by last saturday where northern station partner with magic to do a barbecue halloween, talent show, the whole thing. those barbecues will start of again in

january because in november and december we do a lot of feeding and turkey and lots of events for the community. when we don't have that, that's something we'll be partnering with the kids. >> there was a dance off? >> there was a dance off and the police officer participated but lost. so it wasn't for lack of trying. that concludes my report. >> thank you, chief. colleagues, do you have questions for the chief? no? okay. thanks, chief. sergeant, please call the next line item. >> item 2b occ director's report. discussion. >> good evening, president loftus, commissioners, chief suhr and the rest of the audits -- audience.

occ documented a mediation training and she made a presentation about the occ mediation program. ms. salazar was also a presenter at the conflict resolution in reno, -- -- and she talked about san francisco and occ's mediation program. i along with others served as a mentor hosted by the uc berkeley law women of color collective. it was attended by approximately 50 women and i had the opportunity to talk about what i do here in san

francisco with the office of citizen complaints. deputy director eric and senior director mcman who is also here this evening spoke to recruits about the police academy about the mission and function of the occ. finally, staff performed outreach services at the chinatown resource fair hosted by district attorney george gaskin at square. over 100 people attended the event and investigators were there to answer questions regarding the mission and the function of the occ. many of the attendees spoke cantonese, and some spoke mandarin. investigator huey is bilingual and conversed with many of the

attendees and cantonese but he doesn't speak mandarin. moving on to statistics, through the end of october this year, the occ mediated 43-case compared to 45 cases through the end of october 2014. to date the occ has opened 578 cases. we've closed 537 and sustained 45-case. we have 376 pepding cases. as of november 4th, last year the o cc opened 626 cases and up by 8% and closed 232 cases and we have 100 pending cases and that's attributable to long-term absences. i will provide written statistical reports for september, october and

november in a comprehensive third quarter statistical report at one of your meetings in december since your recent meetings have been largely devoted to body camera presentations. that concludes my report this evening and i'm happy to answer any questions. >> anyone have questions for director hicks? director hicks i do thank you for saving some of those reports for next meeting so we have time for the next report. please call next line item. commission reports, commission president's report and commissioners report. >> i did attend the annual and to be repeated, halloween bash at the public safety building. i dressed in a costume along with my kids. it was great. i did tweet it too, victor. but more importantly i wanted to note and appreciate from the department that there were so many cadets there.

it's another way to show how important the kids are and creating positive experiences with law enforcement and with the kids that populate the city. it was great to see and it will be more in years to come. the kids were excited about the fire trucks and motorcycles and get to go play with all of those toys. that was great. colleagues, reports. commissioner hwang? >> i attended the resource fair. had an opportunity to speak with the audience and discussed the functions of the occ and sat with investigator huey and allen as well as her son. i also attended briefly the public safety meeting and was struck that that meeting there were a lot of residents that had the same complaint when someone talked about the

mission corridor. it's not the visitors, but the residents they are concerned with. captain had a great rapport with the folks and they addressed issues and delegated to sergeant to follow up. >> thank you. commissioner mazzucco? >> i would like to thank president loftus and chief suhr for the halloween festival. i was not in costume. commissioner loftus was jam and her husband was peanut butter. >> i'm not sure that was part of public record but it is now. >> the recruits and cadets were there. people talk about community policing and what are we doing and we see officer louis in the chair with about 100 police stickers all over her that children were putting on and seeing the children interact with police officers on a great basis.

i thank the chief for doing it. i know it was a great idea and the children come first and i can't wait to see it again next year. thank you. president loftus, it was a great experience. maybe next year i will dress up. >> thank you, any further reports? okay, sergeant, please call the next line. do i have to do public comment. madam city attorney. >> we have one item. 2d. commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings, action. >> colleagues, anything we want to put on a future agenda? >> to remind the public there will be no commission meeting next week, november 11th, we are dark that day and the meeting scheduled for november 18th is going to be the department's medal of value or award ceremony which will take place at the masonic center 19th avenue and that will begin at

6:00 p.m.. >> we are dark next week because it's veterans day. >> correct. >> anything on scheduling? >> somebody raised and i know commissioner mazzucco you brought it up. on the social media, where are we with that. >> i continually ask about that and it's become a bigger issue everyday. where are we at with the social media policy? >> it's being drafted. >> with your permission, it needs to be drafted sooner than later. it's been going on since last year. we need the get it on the agenda sooner than later. >> my understanding is that they issued a bulletin. i agree that it's better that we get it sooner than later. >> the department will be

enforced. but to make it permanent, we have to come up with a general order. >> to suggest that it's trying to get agreement on all the parties before it comes up. i remember you talking about this, is that the issue? >> well, just to clarify i have only been here a year 1/2. so given multiple priorities within the department, this is something that i have been working on. it's just very time consuming and very technical. so to that end it's being worked on and hopefully it will come back to the commission shortly. >> i do want to reassure the commission we do have a policy. as you know, it's good for 2 years. we will work in ernest to get this thing made so the commission

can enact a permanent policy. i don't want you to think there is no policy in place, we do have a policy in place. >> okay, anything further on this matter, colleagues? okay. any public comment on items 2a through d? c'mon up. public speaker: michael petrelis again. i would like to make a request that in the future on the website on the commission's website that you include a written report from the chief, from joyce, occ and the president. i believe the public is entitled to a written report. i believe you all had written reports. at least joyce you seem to be reading from notes. it would be really good to have those documents posted on the website so folks may come to hear what you are going to be discussing in your reports. also if we are not coming to the meetings and we are watching at

home, either live or on demand, we are going to have your written reports to guide us as you are speaking about everything. the second request has to do with the body camera thing. i can't stay for that last item. but you have a six page report that is not on your website. i'm going to be watching your, it is posted at the commission's thing? okay, for today's meeting? thank you. i did not notice that. i will go back and look. what i'm saying is i commend you for sharing this six page report. so everyone who is watching at home right now go to the commission website and find this so you can follow along with the body cam discussion that's going to do come up. thank you. >> thank you, mr. petrelis, not only is this document but all the minutes from the meetings that happened over the summer is on the commission website on

body cameras: so everyone at home can follow-up. public speaker: good evening, commissioners. i would like to echo michael petrelis' comments about transparency and publishing reports. i want to comment related to the chief's report with all do respect to the chief, as i mentioned before i don't think it's appropriate for the chief to be sitting up here with you on the commission panel. joyce hicks of the office of citizens complaints is a representative of the oversight body, but the police department is the body that is being overseen. that is a crucial distinction. it's something called regulatory capture. you may have heard of when basically the people who are supposed to be regulated by some government

agency having that over seen by the agency. it creates the perception if not the reality that that maybe occurring. i would advise you for your own credibility as well as the public's confidence in the process to rethink that and there is practice of allowing police officers to appear here in uniform to testify unless there is specifically requested to do so by the commission. if they are coming on their own time to lobby the public, i think they should be in civilian clothes like everyone else. >> thank you, star child. any further public comment on items 2a through d? welcome back. public speaker: hello, my name is aaron juicy. i would like to say in dealing with the reports, i was in berkeley and returned back m san francisco at 130 --

then there was lots of police and i was wondering what was going on. i did go to city hall at ufc pet rally. it was real good. it was nice, officers attended there. you talk so low to us in the audience. i don't know how to work that phone yet. but i was hoping you can talk real loud so we can hear you in the public and i want to congratulate the lady for winning the sheriff and the lady who won in kentucky. i think it's a time when women are really stepping out and the men, we can't hardly hear what you are saying and we want you to

be as bold and continue your fight while the women step in and take us to a place where we've never been in this world and country. >> thank you, juicy. is there any other comments on items 2 a-d? is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> please call the next item. >> item 3, discussion regarding body worn cameras draft policy discussion. >> colleagues, as you know this is a matter that has been before us for a few months. i just want to oernt us all as to where we come from and where we are tonight. for those watching at home i wanted to point out the draft policy is a six page document as well as the minutes from all the meetings we've had. in may there was an announcement that san francisco police department would put body cameras on all officers within the department who did any investigative or public facing

roles. in recognition of the need to balance the many interest in crafting this policy, i directed the department to take 90 days to formulate a body camera working group and have that group come up with a draft policy. there were a number of diverse stakeholders who discussed the policy came to consensus where possible and we asked them to identify areas to go deeper where there was not consensus. the expectation was not that they would agree on every point but they would look at what was out there and make statements on where there was consensus. we've gone over this before but it's worth noting the members include the bar association, which i should note. the request was that they had a body camera working group already in progress led by the district attorney's office so they represent the interest of lawyers from the criminal side and the prosecute real

side t human rights office, officers for justice and london breed from the board of supervisors, the officers of citizens complaints. the office of public defenders, the women's peace officers association, the latinos peace officers association and those minutes are posted on our website and ultimately voted in august with a draft policy which we are going to talk about in detail tonight. we discussed the policy and heard from the department in september where the department laid out issues where there was consensus ands flagged where there were a couple outstanding issues and that night we were able to hear from a couple of the working groups where there were issues mostly around when officers get to view the video footage. the other issue that came up was whether or not the language is

included in there about immediate investigations when there is an administrative investigation triggering where the officers can an cannot video the video. colleagues we have taken it to the road and there have been two public meetings. many i see here were at the meeting . we had a meeting at the western edition in september and in the tenderloin in october. in both of those meetings we heard from the department from the construction of the policy and the various pieces of the working group and we heard from folks on the different sides from the key issues and we heard from the public, issues of concern, groups who were not participating in the debate or discussion in any official capacity also have shared an sent us letters and articles to read. so that's the process where we are now. we have not yet had an opportunity as a

commission to discuss the issues that have come up. we've been in a listening mode. so tonight, we are not acting or voting, but the idea is to go through in a public way the suggestions that came up and discuss the various positions and see if we can come to consensus ourselves on some of these issues. so my recommendation is obviously this is a national conversation that we are right in the middle of and figuring out what makes sense for san francisco. at the end of the day it's a six page document. my suggestion is we go through the document section by section and first identify where there is consensus. one thing the working group made very clear that there was a lot agreed upon and that's a place to start and where there was agreement to flag it and come back. that's my suggestion. does that sound good with

everyone? >> yes. we all agree. >> let's start with where we agree and areas that we agree. we have a six page document that you all have. let's start with section one. that's always a good place to start. it is the purpose and i want to invite the department and certainly the director to weigh in as we go through these various pieces if there are strong concerns. the first section is purpose. obviously there is a few notes here, the purpose states the use of body warn came vasoan effective tool of law enforcement to use to demonstrate it's commitment to transparency and ensure the accountability of members and to serve officers and protect it's members justified complaints of

misconduct. the goal was taken from the gfa report. i always noted there was language i liked suggested by the public defenders office at the end of the first paragraph and the purpose to ensure members of effective and rigorous use of the body worn cameras and the program. that is going to be important that we have members adhering to this program and seeing there is something in it for them as well. i like that. any comments, folks on section 1, purpose. we did not hear from members of the public specific details about changing that. so i'm opening it up to you guys if there is anything additional on this section? there is one comment that the public defenders suggested we use as peace officer instead of person.

part of what we do here as a policy making policy as not getting into drafting specific language but thematic direction so the policy will reflect our intention. so if we are feeling like it's reflecting our intention, we can move on. any comment on section one. it's not a public comment. nothing. okay. section two. this is about a policy and what will be administered. since this process is on going, ab 69 was passed by the governor. i read that legislation and shared with all of you at the last public meeting we had. i read it to instruct

bodies that are developing policies to ensure the practices that are laid out but not a requirement that we provide positions but they give a lot of information on what best practices are specific to storage and commission. my suggestion is we ask the city attorney to look at some of these pieces to ensure that we have considered them and if there is a recommendation that we change certain aspects to be in compliance of what best practice is that you folks get back to us with that recommendation. >> agree. i read ab 69 and there were some very good recommendations in terms of storage and retention of material. so we should go through that. >> got it. any other comments on sections 2? one thing that i will note from ab

69 that i found instructive, they do make a recommendation that for certain violations of the body worn cameras policy that you include in the policy and that might come up about whether or not we might want to adopt that. that is one of the recommendations in ab 69. let's move on to section 3, procedures. and again, folks, please. it's the very next section 3. section 3, procedures. my expectations from you all too if there are issues that i haven't caught, please bring them up on each of these sections. section 3, set up and

maintenance. we go through responsibility for the proper care and use of an assigned body worn camera and equipment. i will note that while we didn't get any comment on section a, it's noteworthy that a number of these were taken from the oakland police department policy on what happens if they discover a defect and what steps to take to remedy that. section b, on section b it indicates consent is not required. this has been to some degree an issue on the establishment of body worn cameras policy. it's to activator not to activate the body worn cameras on the request of a citizen. i did note that this might have come up from one of my fellow commissioners about whether we want to discuss at this point.

it appears the department has indicated there is a supreme court case to decide. i'm not sure if that has been presented to us yet. not yet. do folks want to talk about this piece about requiring to activator not to activate. commissioner dejesus? >> the problem with it is it's so vague and ambiguous. like i'm not required to activator deactivate. they are required to activate and deactivate according to the provisions below or except for if they don't have to do it on the request of the citizens. i feel it's too vague and ambiguous. >> so other commissioners? does anyone share that concern or have other thoughts on this? for me, it

seems actually pretty straight forward. it's more a matter of whether that's the policy we want to adopt. if i'm a citizen and i'm in an interaction with an officer and i say "you need to turn that off" the question is how do they handle that request. i think we need direction on that. >> or you need to turn it on. >> right. >> it doesn't put them in a position where they are answering or not. >> it's clearly discretionary where it's here. >> i would think prudent the way to go. >> dr. marshall, i'm sorry. we can't. >> i'm sorry. putting it in the citizens, the officer is not required upon the request to either turn it on or off. that's the way this reads.

that's fine with me. >> okay. other commissioners have thoughts on that? commissioner hwang? >> i don't know if it's the right thing. the other issue i raise is this issue of notification policy. i don't know if that would fit under here, some language to the idea when practical the officers should provide notification that the recording is going to be activated. that seems to be the best practice recommended in a couple of the other policies including the new york policy. >> so i would agree this would be the right place to insert that and it is distinct. consent is different from notification. do others have thoughts in the department around notification. there is a sense that some departments are saying where it's reasonable or practical notice and other

departments feel it's an unsafe burden given the number of factors the officer has the deal with. >> chief? >> the camera should be already on. there should be a notification that it's on, not that you are going to turn it on. >> do you have thoughts about things to consider? >> again, i think as long as it allows as practical or was a should versus a shall so you are not setting up the officers up to fail. >> we didn't have to notify the camera is on. i thought i read that here. i could be wrong. >> sergeant? >> there was a state where you can't film people without permission but i don't think that's a state law in california. >> i know this did come up in the working group meeting about

this and there was talk about whether or not there was specific case law over that and no one came forward with that. >> so, i know commander sullivan is here representing sort of what the thinking was. the question on this particular issue and we can flag it sergeant. was that an issue that was considered about whether or not the officers are required to notice them? i think the issue is does not require them but the policy is to and that reaches to cooperation from the citizens but having the clarification whether or not to turn it off or on if the

person skz. asks. >> there is an exception in the penal code that allows an officer to record someone without consent. although the discussion although it was not consensus, if you will, we all did agree that it was not settled perhaps in u.s. supreme court but we recognize it as given that it was not required, that we would not require the officers to make that notification. >> all right. i'm going to flag section 3 on consent. it appears we do need to at a site to that and come back on whether or not we want the department to tighten that language to commissioner dejesus point. director, did you want to weigh in? >> a yes, i do, president

loftus. i just want to give a little historical context to the section and the way it was originally written -- i was looking at the june 16th, version. there could be an earlier one. i will deal with this for the time being. the way this section was written "private persons an expectation when dealing with police officers performing their normal scope of lawful duties. members are not required to record at the demand of a citizen. " the discussion was to soften the language about private persons not having an expectation of privacy and instead making that section instructive to officers so officers would not be confused when someone asked

them to turn off the cameras to be very clear that no members do not have to turn the body camera off at the request and so, there was an evolution of the language. >> got it. and my sense is that there was consensus amongst the working group that the language they provided here answers that question and provides direction. >> yes, that was the consensus of the group as i recollect. >> commissioner hwang was it your suggestion that we could not draft it word for word. what is important and missing here is a reference of notification. let's have a discussion around notification and see if we want to provide that direction to the department. >> right. >> other folks, victor made his case. we have to raise them one at a

time. >> i'm back on the consent issue. >> we are going to hold on on notification and back to consent. >> i wonder if there is a situation where a person reports a residential burglary and the officer responds and not sure whether or not there is going to be tension and they turn on their camera. is there a situation where the homeowner would tell the police officer please don't come in with the camera on. is there a situation where the officers not necessarily in a public place but about to enter a private place where we have some kind of carve out where the resident would be able to ask the officer not to turn the camera on when entering the home. i'm concerned again with potential release of the video at some later point pursuant to some sunshine or public records request. this is your house, the privacy

of your house being put out there. i don't remember seeing that in any other policy where they kind of consider this intersection between a potentially a victim's privacy interest versus, because there is other language in here that directs the officers to not to turn off the cameras until they finish their investigation. how do we balance that? >> that is the million dollar question. on section e where we get to we can outline situations where there can be determinations of recordings and that is a subject to some concern to folks that there needs to be real clarity when officers must turn it off and on. what i'm hearing you say is a discussion of consideration whether there is a home exception regarding whether or not consent is an issue. i could argue it the other way too,

which is just a lot of crimes occur in the home. so i can see a situation where a person who very much wanted what was happening not to be videoed but it was something that the officers rightfully should it be recorded in the course of their enforcement actions that they are taking and as a policy matter we want to have those and certainly that's why this is balancing privacy interest versus transparency. my initial thought to be able to carve out without a specific direction without having a huge hole that could require officers to turn off the camera in the middle of force many action of something they need to video. >> perhaps we put this someplace early where afterwards the investigation is completed that a resident would be able to petition if there was no arrest made

or they didn't trigger one of the conditions under authorized use, turns out if there was nobody in the home, that the homeowner would have a right to petition to have the tape destroyed within 2 weeks if there is no evidentiary value. >> retention is a section covered in ab 69 and later on in the policy. let's flag that. commissioner mazzucco? >> my concern is when you are required to deactivate the cameras t problem in my opinion and we haven't heard from the police department, that adds another element to the encounter that the police officer is having with the citizen and that may heighten the conditions taking place and whether or not the camera should be on or off where the purpose is to capture

the event for the officers and the prosecutors and defense attorneys and those involved. i think to have the officers to have to make a decision if the public says turn it off, turn it on, we are adding another element to their job which is dangerous and heightens the tension between them and who they are confronting. i think commissioner hwang that we should leave it as it is. but he didn't say that, but let it be recorded and whether it's shared with anybody is the issue. whether it's placed in protective order and held in place unless it becomes relevant. i don't want to give the officers one more step they have to go through and encounter with the public to turn it off, turn off, get angry with the public. they are not movie producers. i think we should leave it the way it is. >> okay, in an effort to

identify open issues and where we agreed, i'm going to stay with consent, not required to activate -- or not with the citizens. but to include a proper site and that it's with the working group and clear and we agree for now on this language with that caveat. where are other folks on that? commissioner melara? >> fine. >> okay. commissioner dejesus, did you want to say something? >> i don't know what you mean by agree. if that's the language we can leave for now. >> again, we are trying to move through so we can identify the issues. we are not voting officially but we agree we have consensus on that point and give that to the department

and to the secretary to make that change and find that supreme court cite. i wanted to give commissioner hwang's notices suggestion and saying i have turned on my body camera. that notice if there is some idea if you do notice there tends to be greater cooperation. on the flip side, commissioner mazzucco on the counter point it is yet another thing that we are telling our officers to do in what can be difficult situations. so some folks have suggested putting in language when reasonably possible so it's not a clear and you shall but it would be better if you did notice the folks that you are videoing them. that's open for discussion amongst all

of us. anyone have thoughts on notice? that's not required but it would be preferable. i don't know in director hicks or commander sullivan want to give some direction on that point that might be instructive to our fellow commissioners? >> let me ask this question. if there is no notice, is that an assumption that the cameras are going to be on? it's like the miranda and steps 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

if there is no notice, is it assumed the cameras will be on during a situation. i'm assuming this is what this is all about. >> i think for folks watching at home, the chief indicated the body worn cameras, there is a red light that they are worn in the chest area and there is a red light. the question is probably assuming that someone would know and the question is whether or not it's important for us to add when possible to let them know that they are being filmed. >> looking at the audit that the new york police department did is they put down that they should provide a notification and they have an example of what they should say should be a standard apply. i'm advising you that our interaction is being recorded. hopefully those choice of words will not

escalate because they are told they are on camera. also there is a paragraph that to prevent the improper use of the safety exception in that language, they don't have to give a notice if there is a threat to their safety. so there is two clause that come with the notice. i thought we read for the oakland one that they saw a deescalation when they informed the people they were being videoed they saw the stats go down in terms of deescalation. i did note we didn't have a notice, i don't know why. if we are going to do that, we should analyze when they have to do it and what words to say and perhaps the exception if there is enough time. >> so it would be great to hear from commander sullivan or director

hicks. if you have at the read y if there is a sense of discussion or deliberation among that point around notification, strong feelings if not or just where that ended up? >> i don't specifically recall having that discussion. i referred it to director hicks. she's shaking her head. she does not either. i will point out as commissioner dejesus pointed out there are policies that we looked at on this specific topic. it's kind of a split as to whether or not i'm getting away whether or not consent is required but as to notification. there are policies. los angeles lapd uses one language. i can read it verbatim. but when reasonable to do so, not cornering the officers into a shall because these situations can be very dynamic, but when reasonable or appropriate, it doesn't say appropriate, but reasonable to

do so, an officer should give notice that they are recording. there are also policies that don't speak to it. >> thank you, commander o'sullivan. my interest from reading this, i am comfortable with language that says when reasonable. i think there is some compelling data that is going to set everybody to know they are on camera. everyone will behave better and i think in terms of setting up habits to the extent to which this policy sets up habits to training that will be the new normal, it will become a habit when possible notify people and so my suggestion to you colleagues is that we direct our secretary to insert some language in here based on the policies referred to by commander o'sullivan regarding when reasonable and practical notice the citizen that they are on

camera. does that sound right to everyone? >> sounds perfect. >> commissioner, before we move on can i ask you to clarify the consent part. you want a citation for that expectation of privacy when dealing with police officers or the exception under the penal code that we don't have to notify if we are surreptitiously taping? >> i think both of those are authority under that section that we can include both. and again it doesn't need to be a legal brief, but it's helpful to understand what authority is controlling there. okay, we are now through section 3 b and now to section 3c. authorized use. okay. so here we are. this is the section that deals with very important point which is the subject of many discussions.

initially what our literature showed us when body worn cameras are issued that it should be all the time and that thinking evolved and i'm thinking in terms of the aclu and perhaps what is most important that during instances, it's very clear in the policy when the camera needs to be turned on and there is accountability for that. so i also recall remember -- rebecca young from the public defenders office that circumstances will make it very clear and the working group indicated to us that they were comfortable with these situations. so for people watching at home or members of the public, it is a specific list. detentions and arrest, encounters where the suspect or the citizen maybe involved in suspicious criminal

activity. except in 3d, traffic and pedestrian stops when conducting a search or search warrant and lays out a number of searches, cursory, probable cause and vehicle inspections and also during the arrest of detainees and during anytime it becomes hostile and for any law enforcement purpose. i note that was a group suggestion after a lengthy discussion. so on this section, i just want to note for colleagues, one note that i did have was actually from commissioner dejesus which was the potential to add vehicle pursuits to the list of times where they shall turn on their camera. i do recall commander moser the

reason they didn't do vehicle pursuits because where the camera was mounted it was unlikely they would capture much but that's where we left that. so i would open up to discussion or other things that came up in this particular section, section 3c. commissioner mazzucco has nothing, commissioner hwang. >> i'm just divided on this and just imagining the number of clients you come in contact with mental health issues which perhaps there is paranoid schizophrenia where everybody is recording me. i don't know if the officer needs to build trust with the person and maybe it's a deescalation type. but turning on the camera can

be a very aggravating factor. i don't know how to deal with that. the second concern i had is is based on a recent critical incident on a close encounter between an officer and the citizen, the body camera is not going to capture very much. the question i have is for all the other responding officers to a scene. should there be some kind of on or off switch where one officer is activating then all the other officers should activate because they maybe able to capture a different angle. the officer engaged in the arrest, that body worn cameras may not capture the scene but other officers if they are arriving later in the episodes. i don't know if there is a way to figure that out. but it seems

in the critical instance we want to capture as many views as possible. >> i'm going with the commander on the 5150 point. my question if you recall which policies that was taken from and i think i can probably figure out which one where the officer is taken off the camera if that was causing disruption. i wonder if that was contemplated and what the workgroup was on 5150s? >> i don't recall we specifically spoke to carving out an exception for 5150s or the discussion whether or not that might exacerbate the situation. with regards to including it in the situation, i know that many policies we looked at specifically include

5150 situations. there is a caveat within our policy that should an officer feel the need to turn the camera off if he or she needs to do so but he or she would have to document why they did that. so commissioner hwang, under your example, if it was such a situation where perhaps me as the primary contact was someone or not another officer in a negotiating type of rule felt that was an aggravate or and you as the individual deem that request to turn it off, i feel the officer as well as the supervisor at the scene would feel safe to do that to go ahead and do that. there is lots of hypotheticals. the other point brought up was or maybe you were hinting at in terms of

confidentiality with individuals for 5150s and of course we haven't gotten to that point in the discussion, but in terms of releasing documents. there are those exceptions. 5150s, domestic violence, sexual assault, things of that nature that we as a department in any law enforcement is prohibited from releasing those documents as a general rule of thumb. there are always exceptions to those. an attorney can read to that. from my point of view, there are no exact discussions about 5150s. >> a lot of the critical incidents that we deal with as a commission start with the 5150 scenario. that's the good proportion of with a we see and that's the common trend. so we need to capture those

events. now, i have no problem leaving it up to the discretion of the officers, those who are trained. the training and experience and on the streets for a while and they know how the situation is evolve but once they feel this situation where a 5150 call or an 800 call is not related to a significant use of force, then it up to them whether they want to turn it off. i will refer to commissioner melara who works in this field. >> you are absolutely right. >> you have to talk into the mic, people. >> you are absolutely right. i wouldn't want to put a police officer in the situation of having to explain that they turn off their camera and be a suspect in terms of you know what the end result was. in these situations that are volatile and they could turn into a difficult situation in no time. so i would rather say that they could have the

option to turn it off, but i would rather say they shouldn't just because of what the situation could turnout to be. >> director hicks? >> yes, i just wanted to comment president loftus and members of the commissioner and concur with commander sullivan that the 5150 issue did not come up in my experience investigating police conduct. that is exactly the situation where we would want the officer to have the body camera on to help, to determine what happened. and there are really only limited exceptions where an officer can terminate the recordings. this 5150 detentions would not

fall into those limited exceptions and that's in section e which i know you will discuss later on. but this would not be one of those exceptions unless the officer received an order from a higher ranking member, but there is no carve out and we did talk about not giving broad discretion to terminate recordings because that would cause so much discretion that we couldn't determine when an officer would have the camera on or not. so, again, agreeing with commissioner mazzucco that these are situations where we would want to have a record. >> thank you, everyone for your comments. i think it's important for everyone where i feel compelled to say through this whole discussion

and where we want clarity and from what we have learned from other departments about being clear about what we are expecting sets the officers up for success and the community up for success. i tend to agree that in these initial phases that we can learn from the policies. and not leave it ambiguous and where the officer knows whether or not to turn it on or off and we come with a big hammer that it's something we want to see. in order for this to be a successful program, officers also have to view it as something that is a tool for them, a tool for them as police officers and a tool for them in keeping a record that could be a really difficult interaction. so i would recommend based on everything that we said we keep it as is and just see where the group is in terms of

consensus after discussion. >> you know, the only place where i had a comment in this section was that i'm wondering is no. 8 if during any citizen encounter that becomes -- n solved. the question is when do we know that's going to happen? >> i put some thought into that. i can't read it. i brought that up last tight. -- time. new york had 6 months to evaluate and they had an audit, that is when you have these broad terms, all this contact, it's too broad and it doesn't give them guidance as to what that means. i have gone through

this, there is no use of force particularly articulated in this document. any citizen encounter that becomes hostile. for example, use of force, things like that. this is too generic and it doesn't give guidance. >> frankly, i think use of force is really all by itself. >> excuse me, i guess my comment was more for the purpose that when the procedures are developed, the more thoughts are put in place. i don't want to get too specific. this is not the place to be specific. we are developing a policy. we are not developing the procedures. so i brought it up because i want to make sure that when the general order is developed, that there is so the thought in place as to what this means and how you are supposed to decide when something is supposed to become volt i -- volatile. >> to commissioners when the

use of force is not specifically laid out here. i recall and might have been just relying on my memory so you can probably help. i recall being at the meetings where the discussion was one of these things would have to trigger a use of force. i don't remember if that's true or not but this is any of these points where anything can lead to the use of force and the area where we want to trigger the capturing of the event. >> i don't have a recollection of that but i will say that under no circumstance are we automatically going to jump to to the use of force. we pick what's required for example no. 1, detention or an arrest. either one of those circumstances could lead to the use of force. so i think, in looking at this, you know, the thought is that use of force

could follow through from anyone of these circumstances and we just finished discussing a 5150. so it was not deemed to be so important as to point that out as much as it was that's a part of providing public safety services and sometimes during the course of detention if you were trying to handcuff someone for example and how they are pulling away from you, your camera is already on. that use of force incident is going to be documented. >> that for me is like -- it doesn't make sense to have any at all. because anyone of these can turn hostile. anyone can turn to the use of force. listed all the incidents is fine. turning it on in the first place. >> commissioner dejesus, i think i recall it was police officers who

suggested this because a catch all if there is an incident where they are not detaining or arresting someone but if it's hostile and looks like interaction. it looks like the chief wants to respond to that. >> that's exactly right. if it becomes hostile. if you are talking to a regular person down the street and there is a walk by, there are those instances where you might say hello to somebody and they become upset and something happens. in those instances. that's an instance where it wouldn't be on prior. it would come on after the fact. >> any thoughts that you want to share with us on that particular point as well? >> nothing additional on that particular point. thank you. >> commissioner dejesus? >> i'm looking and i'm telling you, i'm looking at the l.a. order. it's very specific. vehicle

stops, it's call for service, including vehicle pursuits, foot pursuits, searches, arrest and use of force. it calls it out completely as a specific category. there is no where in this document at all that calls out for a use of force that trigonometries the -- triggers the use of cameras on and the use of force to be recorded. i think that should stand on its own. the more specific you are to when it's triggered is more helpful to the officers as far as any evidentiary purpose. what does that mean? any law enforcement purpose. what does that mean. they come down the line and they are disciplined because they didn't turn it on. there is no real specific. we need to be specific when we expect it to be turned on. for what types of conduct we expect it to be turned on. the more specific we are the

more helpful we are to the officers.

>> one of the initial complaints is the use of force. we should put use of force and those are my comments to that one. prior to use of force. if we are going to use this real generic language. we should give some examples. >> thank you, commissioner. the workgroup was satisfied with this specific. i do think there are a number of things that probably could be more specific. let's go through and have a discussion. commissioner dejesus with the specific recommendations. one specifically adding use of force. i want to hear from others. while i do believe it's captured for use of force from others but as

it's laid out we want the officers to use that as well. i don't know if other folks would agree with that. i'm interested in other thoughts. commissioner mazzucco? >> i agree. it's better to have the cameras on more often than not. i agree it should be on so in case something does escalate to use of force, if it's a foot pursuit, it's essentially a use of force and the cameras on, the better it will be. i don't want the officers to think. they go through many different things when they are in an encounter. they are looking at the hands, they are watching. they sizing up the situation. i would hate to add one more element do

i turn the camera on. it's best to just turn it on. >> i hear consensus that is added during use of force. >> any situation could lead to use of force. standing by itself not going to make a difference. having the cameras on all the time is going to make a difference. keeping the cameras on better than not. the general order should be as specific as possible so we don't get into the minutia here.

>> i agree with commissioner melara. the camera being on. we have to get them all in in every particular situation. i feel now we are going to leave one out. let's go through the list and if you feel, i don't see how you are going to get everyone in. you are crafting different policies from all kind of places and they all have different things. we can put them all in and satisfy everybody, that's fine. >> here is our job guys, we decided that cameras can't be on all the time. but we have to be specific to officers of when they need to be on. this list is comprehensive. i agree with commissioner dejesus that i don't think it's a problem to adding when it's use of force and we need to have them on more than not. as a policy maker we need to be aware the quality of that video is going to be an

issue and we need to go into that with eyes wide open and just to numerate other situations where officers know to turn it on and it would benefit to turn it on. my view would be to add vehicle pursuit and foot pursuit to that. >> what about prior to? >> that's a separate issue. we'll get to that. that's my recommendation on one. the second one that commissioner dejesus raised is whether or not to include language about prior to, that members to record prior to these things happening. so two thoughts. one is i understand there is technology that allows once the officer turns it on that it goes back 30 seconds, is that right, chief? is that the standard? >> i don't know that it's the standard, but it's one of the requirement that we specked out that what we are asking for. >> okay.

i know that this came up before and commander moser weighed in about the concern about adding the prior two languages of setting the officer up to sometimes you don't know when it's going to jump off and we don't want to set up officers that if something jumps off they didn't do it prior to. i would love to hear from everyone on that. are people satisfied that the cameras will go back a certain time to capture what happened before they turn it on or do we want to be clear around this prior to. >> i think it's what the police department has chosen. >> i think if they are in the middle of

the encounter, their safety is that issue. prior to its an automatic thing. if you are going to do it, it's vehicle stopped, you should do it prior to getting out of the car. if you are going to do a search warrant to a house, it should be done prior to entering to a house. it's just prior to. and the language here if an officer is unable to activate his or her enforcement he should activate the device as soon as it's safe to do so. if they can't do it. we should have instruction as to prior to if they are in a situation prior to turning it on or risking an officer's safety in turning it on. >> what happens when they don't know that it's going to turn into a detention or arrest? >> you never know what's going to happen in a vehicle stop. >> but in a vehicle stop you know you

are going to be stopping and vehicle. >> on a foot pursuit, you should turn it on. vehicle stops, searches you are going to know. >> some instances you will know and some you won't. my concern is that we don't set folks up with an expectation that is impossible to meet. commander o'sullivan, do you want to weigh in on this issue or where it came up? >> so the discussion as i recall when something is going to happen. to adhere to a policy of prior to where there is a dynamic where an officer is driving down the street and they see something and they have to jump out of the car prior to taking

enforcement action reacting to what it is, they are taking some action. they are already in a response mode. at that point to have the presence of mind to activate the camera, the question then becomes why didn't do you it prior to. there is language in policies that speaks to as soon as practical. >> this doesn't say anything. this doesn't say practical or prior to. it's a disservice whether or not saying prior to turning it on. there is always going to be exceptions, but we need to give them that guidance. >> other thoughts, chief? >> to speak to what the commander is talking about and to reassure the commission, you can put the language as you see it appropriate. the language used in this circumstance would be should whatever you

want it to say, whenever practical. so that basically takes it into account what you are saying. >> not whenever practical. that's too discretionary. >> so again, should means you should but when you can't, you can't. that's just in the vernacular. if you are on duty and you viewed a shooting. so obviously you are worried about getting shot. you want to stop the shooting. so you get out and you might not remember to turn it on because your first reaction is the personal safety and safety of others. that would be an instance where you would want to turn it on but maybe you wouldn't. like they just had an incident in san diego where the officers were going the wrong-way on a one way street and the video camera caught the suspect arm extended shooting at the officers and they never

got the cameras turned on at all. luckily the other cameras caught but it was clear they were in a life or death situation because their first priority was protection of themselves and the public they were engaging the suspect and luck 33 -- luckily the other video cameras caught the suspect. >> the very next paragraph is inability to activate prior to initiating enforcement or investigating an activity. if you can't do it right away for whatever the reason is, you do it as soon as practicable. it follows that paragraph. you know when you are going to go to a vehicle, you should have it on. it's prior to. >> some of these of drafting differences. this is like the exciting sausage making that everyone is watching. the question is what was the intent in terms of what should be the

policy. i think the recommendation that commissioner dejesus is making and i would like to hear from other commissioners on this point and whether you have thoughts whether the language that we currently of is more prescriptive and clear. you shall activate it their body worn cameras and i want to know, the working group said this level of specificity is required. it's a shall, not a should. technically isn't that a direct order from you? that's a direct order in the para military organization that says this is what you shall do. the question is, i would not want to put in "as soon as practical" because that opens up a lot of situations. but the question whether or not whether all members shall activate their body

worn cameras equipment prior to when possible or reasonable in the following circumstances whether there is a need to insert prior to or whether or not we are comfortable with this language being clear. i want to be clear that commission dejesus suggestion that we are not being clear enough when to turn the cameras on, but the question to be clear when prior to the instances where the cameras should go on. i would like to hear from others on this point. >> i think you are right. we are talking about language that we want to put into it. we are finalizing it when we say shall when reasonably possible. >> i hear what you are saying, commissioner. go ahead, finish your thought. >> that's my thought is that it's the language we are getting at and when you deal with the department that "shall" means a direct order. you can't

order them or do something that would put them at risk. maybe we have to soften the language. maybe we have to move from the shall. >> do other folks have thoughts on this one way or the other? i would like to hear from other folks. >> well, i like the language. it's what the working group came up with. >> there was a lot of people in there representing, obviously the department was in there. i like this language. i don't know if prior to helps or explain it more. when i saw it shall when you get there you activate your equipment. that's what you are supposed to do. i'm fine with this language myself. >> okay, commissioner dejesus. if in the minutes of this if we actually resolve it, when we say shall

is an order, i can live with that. as long as it's in the training when they do it that shall is an actual order then i can live with that. i don't want to word smith this thing. i just hope they know prior to. shall is an order and i can live with that. >> they know shall is an order. there is no discretion to shall. i just want to add in the discussion we had and it gets back to the technology as part of the discussion as the chief said, the request goes out with specifics we are looking at, there is that 30 second loop when i go out and touch the button and start the recording, it's going pick up the 30 seconds. >> i think i can live with that and pick up the prior to. >> very helpful discussion on the shall. before we move on to

section c, commissioner hwang made a point that i don't know that we are clear. so i'm the arresting officer so i know that i'm arresting someone and my camera goes on when i'm conducting the arrest. back up arrives, someone else arrives. i don't think there is clarity on whether or not they need to turn on their cameras at that point and it seems to me that that's something we should speak to. and again, there is no perfect way to make policy, but there is certainly an urgency that we do it. we want to scoop it up and address it now. but i think commissioner hwang makes an important point and it's possible that it wasn't addressed but i would want officers to have that direction if i am to turn it on also if i'm arriving at the scene. commander, do you want to let us know if this came up also?

>> my opinion is that if sergeant kill shaw and myself are dispatched to anyone of these calls and i'm the first arriving officer an sergeant kill shaw gets there, the expectation is that she shall turn on her camera. this is to all police officers who are involved in any number of situation. this policy was not put together with the thought that the initiating, the responsible, the person, the officer that assumes responsibility for the call is the only one tagged with adhering to the order. it's everyone. so totality if we had a scene and it's being reference today a critical incident, if that required 25 of us to respond, all 25 of us would be required by this order to turn our cameras on. >> director hicks? >> i concur with commander o'sullivan, but it was never discussed as

to, i think it was implied but not discussed. if you look in the language to the bart policy where it says all on scene officers all inclusive officers equipped shall activate their cameras prior to making contact with individuals within the following circumstances and they list the type of circumstances where there is that prior to language, i know. woops. [ laughter ] so i say there is clarifying language to bart officers on all officers. there isn't in the draft policy but an assumption that. >> i think more clarity is better because we don't want to set up officers to fail. commander

o'sullivan are there any thoughts to adding that language as it might be instructive. the way you read it might be instructive so we can add that language. >> well, my personal opinion is this is that all referenced equipped with a body camera. as the police officer as someone that is there and has been there to me that speaks, if i'm the officer and reading this policy, i have the body worn cameras and i turn it on and that it satisfies the want of the commission. the way it's written, my belief is the officers are going to read it as i need to turn my cameras on. >> okay, chief? >> i think he said it in there that i agree with the commander that

it's there but to add on scene if that allows extra clarity, i don't think that does any harm either. >> okay, i have to wrap up this section. i have a couple of pieces. tell me if this is correct. one we are going to add use of force, add vehicle and foot pursuit and borrow language from the bart policy regarding on scene in a way that clarifies the point which we believe the intent to the policy. does that sound right? commissioners? >> yes. >> okay, we are moving on, people. we made it through 2 out of six 6 pages. >> our policy is the one everybody will be referring to. >> section 2. prohibiting of recordings. again on section d, for folks following along at home, this is a section that says member shall not activate

the body worn cameras whennen encountering sexual assault and domestic violence victims that will be operative and strip searches. if this requires the deviation from the normal rule in situations. members shall not activate the body worn cameras in a manner specifically prohibited by our dgo in protecting 1st amendment activities. i wanted to flag that it was important for myself and a number of folks who reached out to us that we have a very clear policy on officers not surveiling instances where people are exercising their 1st amendment rights. i'm glad the policy specifically names that because it is a concern the government will use these cameras to have

a justification for people exercising their 1st amendment rights and it's very clear on the policy we have going forward. it also factors in language to protect folks who certainly to the point commissioner hwang has been making where there is a number of adverse. the benefits don't out weigh the transparency need to record something. i don't know if folks have thoughts on section d or other concerns that came up. but i don't have any that i am aware of. commissioner dejesus? >> i agree with you. there are a number of letters that we received concerning 1st amendment protection. in the policy it's specifically says the d go 10 when we don't want the

surveillance. the general order to reiterate those items in 10. that was the concern in the letter but i think it's important we recognize here that we are not going against the 1st amendment rights and if we have in the dgo that we enunciate what those protections are. >> chief suhr? >> when there is a demonstration and we have an operations order that we delinquent in -- delineate somewhere in there. there is numbers of modes indicating the basic operation of orders on this policy. on the draft it's specific to reference it and making it clear when that

circumstance -- arise. anything else? okay. section d on recording. this is when we discussed when officers are authorized to terminate a recording. it does state once the body worn cameras are activated until the event has concluded unless the contact moves into an area restricted by this policy, members shall deactivate in the following circumstances. one when discussing sensitive tactical or law enforcement discussion away and from a high rank member orders it and arriving at a higher rank facility and coming from a location and gathering from community members and there is a concern that body worn cameras

would inhibit efforts. that's the language in e. it does give five circumstances and really only five that we numerate when an officer can terminate a recording prior to the completion of the contact. >> you mean four? are you guys using the 8/11 draft? >> yes. let talk about the four. we'll see why mine is different. comments on this piece? folks, on section e while i figure out the difference? okay.

>> taken out on october 11th for discussion. >> thank you, sergeant kill shaw who always that is answers. the version that i have was taken out after arriving safely after at the booking facilities. comments on this section which is obviously a very important section that there are permissible circumstances as to when it can be turned off. i'm interested in people's thoughts on the language drafted. commissioner dejesus? >> i remember there was an issue because it was vague and ambiguous. it doesn't clarify what rank the officer can be, should it be a lieutenant, sergeant, captain. there was a concern that was raised. i just wanted to point that

out. i don't know if we need more clarity on that. >> given the circumstances where the recording would be permissible that it would be over broad on the first 2 pieces, but i don't know that was the consensus of the entire group but that was some consensus on some folks on the community group. if director hicks on commander wants to fill us in on these two sections and whether they would benefit from some specificity? >> with regards to no. 1, tactical away from the citizen we felt it we be important from the information that in the word self, that we would

never want to compromise the officer's safety and this information would warrant us turning off the cameras and recording at that point. no. 2, after receiving an order from a higher ranking member, the discussion in essence that was a carve out of sorts so it would allow a ranking officer the discretion under a particular circumstance to be able to order an officer to do that. >> did it talk about what rank of an officer? >> not necessarily. we are going to have officers and i will let the chief speak to this and the lieutenant at the scene. but if i wanted to turn my camera off or i was the officer and the sergeant came in t sergeant has the higher rank the officer can order the officer to do so. >> what scenarios would exist as a

practical matter where that would be needed? and i'm doing my best to put you on the spot in every possible way. >> thank you in advance. >> i know the chief tried to jump in here. the hypothetical. >> bail on my commander. >> let's say for instance the instance that commissioner hwang brought up when you are in somebody's residence and it was evidentiary and there was an appropriate necessity issue but officer was trying to make a call, the sergeant on scene would say turn off your camera say it was escalating or aggravating a situation. again you always defer like you would in any industry, can i see a supervisor. the supervisor someone of superior rank would make that call and to try to say it would have to be like a

lieutenant or -- there is not always going to be lieutenant or captain or command staff member, but in a situation an officer can always ask for a sergeant to respond to get the council or the supervisor. >> i would piggy back off the example of the 5150 if someone they are dealing with and their fixation was on my camera and the officer would for the purpose of mitigating the situation and other officers recording the situation and the supervisor came and he or she thought, we may get resolution to this because this person is solely fixated on you and if you turn your camera off, we may get somewhere with this person. there are lots of hypotheticals. >> do you want to weigh in on

this section, director hicks? >> yes, that particular hypothetical is concerning because it does step outside of the exceptions that we have for terminating recordings, but the prior hypothetical by the chief or the commander where there is an exception, the officer is not exercising that exception and the officer's sergeant says you need to turn it off. perhaps the officer isn't tuned in to discussing sensitive tactical or law enforcement information or something of that nature. or maybe the officer is not tuned into recording at the hospital and the officer says you need to

terminate. i don't believe that it's the intent of the language that a higher ranking officer could, they can make an exception where one does not exist to terminate. so clearly there is some disagreement. >> okay, your point director hicks, the way you read this is as a superior officer could direct an officer who otherwise wasn't using his discretion determining based on factors earlier in the policy? >> correct. >> but not under any other circumstance? >> that's correct, president loftus. >> i see. do other folks have thoughts on this. commissioner hwang? >> i guess my suggestion would

be twofold that it would be clearly stated or whether it was malfunctioned where they need to document why it wasn't working or why it wasn't turned on. there would have to be a reason and perhaps to director hicks point that perhaps we should numerate broadly. as commissioner mazzucco as we have served on critical incident call outs where you have 20 officers out at one time and half guarding the perimeter. i can see those guarding that perimeter at one time, you are not filming anything of value. turn your camera off. even though you are on scene. perhaps to mitigate an

escalating situation, a second would be sort of something about balancing of a privacy interest where they make that kind of assess -- assessment. that continues the philosophy of the child abuse where the supervisor makes the determination. there should be some enumerated rational stated why the supervisors requested that video to be turned off. >> okay. chief suhr? >> with regard to a supervisor telling folks to turn something off when they are already in an accepted circumstance. you wouldn't need to order them, you just remind them that they shouldn't have it on. the reason to having been in this profession for a long time, there is no way you can ever define all the things that could possibly happen. you cannot preclude an officer

especially a supervisor from using their judgment in having to articulate why they gave a circumstance when it can be hopefully always comes down to safety's sake. the on us is on that person as it always is in that command to take that responsibility. what we are trying to do is just not leave it to the officer is to struggle over what might happen to make matters worse. we have to rely a little bit on supervisors and make them accountable. if their explanation falls short, then that's why we have other procedures. >> thank you, chief. the issue i had with this section is sort of what you talked about. it's not clear what the obligation when the decision is made to terminate it in documenting that.

it's actually later in section g under documenting it. in terms of a draft, it seems to me that i'm comfortable as a suggestion to my fellow commissioners. i'm comfortable leaving this in as long as we numb -- numb numerate as long as what the officers are doing. if we have a policy where we are seeing a number of circumstances where the officer think it's reasonable to turn it off, we can take further action. we can sit up here in this nice room, but we don't want to tie the hands of circumstances that we factor in f there is a reason to turn off that

that be noted and part of what we review. director hicks, did you want to say something ? >> yes, i concur and then going back to fast forwarding to section g, to discuss the 5150 situation, but i think as you pointed out earlier, commander o'sullivan it's there that officer of public safety would be compromised the body worn cameras were activated during the incident requirement, the member shall document in a written statement or memorandum the reason for not using it. it's the escape clause is there. it exist. >> so remember how i told everyone we weren't going to be making drafting decisions, well now, i'm going

to say, an exception that i'm giving to my policy that we can just have a cross-reference under section e around documentation if required if a camera is turned off. so we don't have to. i will just put that out there. it sounds like we can move on. would my colleagues agree. okay, everyone. all right. we are on to section f. viewing on body worn cameras. obviously this is one of the largest issues that we are facing in departments are facing across the country as to issues what the rules are and govern when the officer can view the body worn cameras footage when doing their report and whether or not

prior to critical instances and under what circumstances. as you know there was a lot of debate and discussion. we heard from a number of folks from the community. one thing that i will note that was interesting to me in hearing the comments. we did hear from a number of officers of varying ranks who shared with us from their perspective about wanting to write accurate reports. i think some of the policy documents that we received -- reviewed have made it clear that what makes a policy successful is whether or not you have engaged officers on all ranks in the discussion of this policy and i'm glad we included officers on the working group and you are all aware that there is also the concern if officers are allowed to view the video, i think

particularly in instances where there is an officer involved shooting or critical incident that there are some unintended consequences. i think as you left it in the policy as you will read it here and i will read it for those watching and home. it currently reads "a member may review a video for any investigatory or logistical purpose for preparing statements or conducting a follow up investigation except when the member is the subject of the investigation in any of the following circumstances captured by the body worn cameras. a, an officer involved shooting or death, b, a member is subject of a criminal investigation, c at the discretion of police or his designee. there is a carve out there. the treatment for the above listed circumstances. the department or criminal

investigator will coordinate with the member or the legal member representative will review prior to the -- none is subject to the investigation and the last section the member shall not access unless it involves a legitimate law enforcement purpose. the way it is currently drafted and i believe starting where there is consensus, i do believe that we heard from a number of folks from the working group and the public that there is consensus that for routine report writing, officers shall view the video. so i think that's not the case everywhere. that's my sense of the consensus. i think for routine report writing, i believe while some folks believe that in all instances they should have to write it and do a supplemental. my sense from the comments that we've gotten is that there is consensus on that piece and the second issue

is around critical incidents. that's how i frame it and i open for correction on how i frame the issue. commissioner mazzucco? >> thank you, president loftus, in all meetings, the whole issue at the gotcha moment. the one simple factor, the officers involved in a critical incident have an opportunity to view the video before writing the reports. and what we heard in the testimony from the officers of all different ranks is that when they are involved in these very stressful situations, they involve life and death situations , they don't necessarily remember exactly what happened. a lot of times i have been told they react to their training and experience. they don't necessarily think. they are trained at the academy

to do thing. i'm one of the commissioners who responded to numerous officer involved shootings and every time you go to the officers interview, you ask how many times did you fire? they say i fired six when they actually fired two. you ask them what happened? next thing you know i was behind the engine block t biggest car on the block. that's what they are trained to do at the academy. these are critical instances. it's hard for them because of the stress, the trauma involved to capture everything they did. so my thought is why not let them look at the video. what's going to control at the end of the day whether that officer did something right or wrong is the video. there is know racing the video or changing the video. i don't think it would affect

the officers inability to do that. i heard an officer say they can review it and write a supplemental report. it's to document new evidence, not that i changed my story because they are subject to cross-examination as to why they changed the story. i have to defer to officers who were in these incidents and they happen relatively quick and what i have seen officers that respond they are in shock. they have been involved in a tragic event. it's about writing a report in an active fashion because the video is in control. i think it's unfair if we don't let the officers view the video unless the chief think something is really wrong and up to his or her discretion and somebody the chief would designate then i can see the wiggle room. i think we

should let the officers view the video. >> we could not rely on possibilities of what could happen to deny officers to view videos. there is no hard evidence and i read everything that has come through my desk. this has kept me awake because it is very boring information, but it's very interesting because everybody has an opinion right now, but there is no hard data. when i look at the new york city report, i see 54 police officers voluntary carrying a camera out

of 34,000 that's 00.1%. that's nothing. that doesn't tell me anything. it tells me that a lot of conversations took place that a lot of people gave their opinion. it does not give me any information that officers are going to misuse recordings for some reason. i can go on right now but i believe if we give officers the tools and then we try to figure out our own data, we could not rely on somebody else's data. begin to develop our own data and figure out if what we are doing is right or wrong. i would rather us review this as a later day rather than limiting our policy in anyway.

>> so i hear you saying that for now you would prefer to allow officers to view the video prior to writing a report? >> absolutely. >> other folks want to weigh in? commissioner hwang? >> let me ask the chief. the consensus that officers should view all routine? are you saying including critical incidents? >> including critical incidents as well. >> other folks want to weigh in? commissioner marshall. >> i read it. it is boring. everybody's got an opinion. so, i'm trying to instill it down to what it comes down to for me. most of the department policies

that have been adopted so far do give the, i think los angeles? >> los angeles, several of the big departments. >> i think san jose do give the officers the right to -- >> san jose doesn't. >> l.a., they have a carve out inform l.a.. >> that's where the confusion is. >> i think i can get an agreement. most law enforcement agencies allow their officers to view it before but there are exceptions including san jose. >> basically it's report accuracy versus. so it's all very confusing to me. i still haven't heard an argument one way or the other. everything i have read does not explain to me one way or the other. it really didn't. i'm waiting to hear the

argument and what the commissioners had to say because what i read just confused me even more and what it came down to, is that most of the departments feel the officers should and other folks didn't. so that's where i am right now. i'm willing to listen to see what folks have to say one way or the other as to why. >> i have a couple of notes that i took on this particular point. i went back through all the public comment and things that were said. so sergeant woods said something similar to what commissioner mazzucco said. reviewing won't change what occurred and it's a point that someone made strongly that when you review it, you don't change what the kept of the -- content of the video is. that was a point made by some of the officers. that given the coverage of some of these issues, i had a

couple mom's to come up to me on the school yard that said i can't understand the issue of viewing it because that won't change anything. the aclu did indicate that if officers are trying to lie, it is a miss perception from the public. and where recollection is important, there was a suggestion that you have the officer write a report and review the supplemental report. interestingly what i found interesting was there was unanimousity that their point is transparency for all and their belief is we should follow what most agencies follow and allow the officers to view the video and that was

their complete shared perspective not just san francisco but all the other various groups. there was significant concern from the aclu and eff, electronic frontier foundation that recognizing striking a balance isn't easy but that we not allow the officers to view the video. we got all kind of comments. one officer said the lie is going to lie whether they view the video or not. one officer said i'm proud to be a san francisco police officer. he's honest. he said i'm not excited about everything i do being recorded but recording can be an effective law enforcement tool. this policy em packets how the department embraces these tools. it's important to be viewed as a tool and it was echoed in the ufc letter that of this

sort of idea if there is an underlying distrust of the officers. again, i hope we pull things we consider, i'm just pulling things from different perspectives. i also felt, this is a very important part. this is a significant amount of taxpayers dollars that folks are requiring that we put together a policy that if cameras are turned on and if they are not turned on there are consequences. folks who have done this in the past have noted for a body worn cameras to be effective it needs the support of the community and also the officers wearing the body worn cameras. these are pieces that i have notes in being influential in me thinking this through. commissioner hwang?

>> i have a question or thought on whether or not and how they think the investigation should be committed. >> from the bar association there were representatives from the prosecutors office involved in that and weighed in and that is issue continued to evolve, we did send up communication to the d. a. and asked for their official position. i received a letter today saying the district attorney is out of town and not able to be here but he hopes to give us some direction prior to when we finally adopt it. i will note that i did read in the press that he had said he believes that officers should view the video prior to writing their report, but that is what i read in from a news outlet.

so i think we should likely wait for official word. >> commissioner marshall? >> i think where i can help with that is the two sides where the officers felt they needed. the other side seems to be the public trust where they might not, and i'm looking for the argument on the other. i can see one side. i'm looking for the arguments on the other side and i didn't get the other side i read. >> what's the other side? >> that they shouldn't review it in all cases. this distrust that they wouldn't do an accurate report that somehow down the line that would affect things. i'm looking for the other argument.

>> does somebody want to provide that other argument. commissioner hwang. these are my thoughts right now but i am leaning toward the officers not viewing it. i think san francisco is different from the rest of jurisdictions around the country. i don't think we have the same level of community distrust. i think it's different. that's why the other policies from other parts of the country are not as useful as coming up with our own policy but i do want to come up with a best practice. i think the best practice would be the officers not viewing those incidents and the reason is this, that i agree fully with what commissioner mazzucco says is that in my interviews of officers shortly after a critical incident that they are wildly inaccurate at times because of the stress of the moment.

but i never found them to be untruthful. so i don't think that's really the issue. i think the issue is we want to capture their -- perception immediately and that leads to their belief as to why they took action. we are mixing what their role is. they are not writing a report. they are going to be interviewed as a witness. they are also not a suspect. for a lot of folks who say it's not fair if you are a homicide suspect you don't get the see the evidence before them. these officers are not suspect either, they are witnesses. the question is whether or not you would let a witness view the evidence. i think where i am right now would be to say the best practice would be to start a policy for 6 months, 3 months, whatever it is for officers not

to view the videos in advance of a critical incident except at the discretion of the investigating officer who is leading the investigation. i think it's common practice. whoever in in charge of the investigation should allow this for recollection but it's up tot the investigation. i don't know that there is any right or wrong. what i'm saying is that we heard from many members of the public that we have to start with trust. we have to start off on the right foot to buy into this. if we start off on the wrong foot and there is a perception that we are giving officers more than the other people, that's what tips the balance for me and then we've lost

public faith in this system that we are spending so much money and time to roll out. i think what president said before is exactly fair. i have been a criminal defense attorney and if i was representing somebody who was potentially viewed of a crime, i wouldn't let my client make a statement either. i think we should gauge in a test period where i believe the officers would give voluntary statements after the shooting and the cause of losing that is enough to gain enough trust is where i'm at right now. >> i'm always john q, the public community guy. if you have a video the

video shows what happened. so what does it matter, the video shows the accuracy of what happened. what does it matter if he views it or doesn't view it because he got the video recording? >> i think there is two scenarios. i'm going to raise a hypothetical. let's say the officer fires his weapon because he perceives that somebody is rushing at him with a weapon. and then when they watch the video, it turns out it wasn't that type of a weapon. it was something else. what we really want to capture in the officers statement is what he or she thought it was. that's what's important and why it matters whether they viewed it

before or not, i don't believe this is a gotcha moment because if the officer was told in advance that it was a certain type of weapon and other people are repeating that information and somebody is rushing at you and all you see is a glimpse of metal. it's what is reported to you and what you saw. i don't want an officer after viewing the video, it wasn't that. maybe i should change what my recollection is because it was something out. i wouldn't want them to alter it because the truth is what will set them free because this would be in their defense. this is what i saw in good faith and this is why it was service -- self defense. as to your second point, i don't know that there is a right or wrong on that, but what we heard from members of the commission and the public, is that the public thinks it's unfair because in

all the language from the public they are viewing the officer as the suspect in that situation that we should be investigating them as suspects and they shouldn't be given more rights more than the suspect. that's an incorrect perception. >> i agree, you are right. >> can i respond to the commissioners point. are we under the point to change your story. because we are under the scenario that i believe that someone runs by and i think it's a gun and then i look at the video before i get my statement in like a lighter. it's very likely the officer is going to say i saw it was a lighter but i was in fear of my life for the lighter. you can see the officer say i thought it was a gun. it was silver and upon viewing the video, it's clear it was a lighter and

i was in error. i thought through that same semi scenario, in terms of changing the story if the way the officer believes the justification for the use of force in captured in this video. if an officer does think they are going to get away with watching the video and then changing their initial perception and being cute with what they might have perceived at the time verse what they actually did, there is going to be a lot of consequences when they are subject to cross-examination. sort of the reverse of the gotcha moment. there is no reason to lie as a police officer because even after you change your story after viewing the video, the department is going to say you wrote down here that you knew it was a gun but really based on, you had

fallen over and all that you had done you can't change is my point. so a good lawyer is going to have the tools to uncover any discrepancies in your story. i like you commissioner hwang have struggled with that question. there is a question around the development of memory science and whether or not there is an issue around changing memories. but i think i tend to think now if an officer is able to view the video and write a statement afterwards it would be at their perception what they did at the time and with viewing the 52, -- video, i don't know if just seeing the video is a blank check to lie. >> commissioner mazzucco?

>> i appreciate what commissioner hwang has said. but the reality is we are sitting here in this nice room and creating our ideas and they are creating their ideas. some people don't like police officers and some people like police officers and they are bias, we are here saying we shouldn't let them. the officers have rights too. it's important that the officers are jumping out of police cars and they have to make a split second decision. it's not fair for any of us to not give them the at some point to look at that video. at the end of the day, the

video is what's going to control . if someone says maybe the officer will change his or her story. you know, there is a lot to these cases , always the starting with the man with the gun or with a knife and the officer is getting the information when responding to these calls. they generally don't happen right away. it's unfair to the officers and unfair to the public. some people have come with agendas and their agendas are to, well, let's catch the officers in a lie. there is no lie. there is a videotape. we have to defer to those on the ground who are making these split second decisions and they should have an opportunity to review the videotape. i think it's unfair not to. it's asking the surgeon to look at the bones after the surgery. >> i don't want to repeat

myself but i keep on going back to the concern that nothing changes what is on video. i don't care how the police officer is feeling before or after what happened. the video does tell a lie. that's my first thing. secondarily, i don't want to tie anybody's hand. i want officers to have the tools to do their job. i try to talk to people about this issue outside here that the deveng and ask them their opinion on this matter. and i would say that if i was going to use data, i would say the 95% of the people that i talk to believe that officers should view their video. this is san francisco. this is not oakland. this is not new york. we are different and i hope

that we can develop a policy that would help police officers do a job without being suspicious of them and that we can revisit the policy in 6 months, 9 months, a year, i don't care, whenever we have enough evidence of what's working and not working. i don't want to base my opinion on somebody else's experience. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner dejesus? >> i think we need to recognize officer involved shootings shootings, he's a witness. he doesn't go down the street to go to the cameras to get the videos and he doesn't interview witnesses on the scene. he doesn't interview the officers. he's isolated. that's the practice we

have now. the law protects his state of mind. that's why his state of mind at the time of the incident is very important to get immunity of what he believes is what he thought to protect himself and others. that's the law in california. he is the first party witness. to bring in the camera, the justice says it is not a second party witness. there is a camera that's capturing things. the law doesn't say what does the camera justify. it's what the officer believes. i agree with you. if he believes he saw something silver and he acted on that and that's what the law protects. not that the video saw a lighter. i think we need to keep it in context what we are talking about. when the law says the officer's perception of what was going on and how he acted, we need to preserve that perception and we need to continue to do things the

way we do it now and as isolating him and giving his statement. i understand that writing a supplemental report is something that you forgot or something that came later, i get that. but the camera being the secondary witness it would make sense to have a secondary port to say that it looked like something shiny and it was a lighter. change is difficult and change is scary sometimes. we need to think about how we even got here. we need to recall that the genesis of using the body worn cameras came as a result of officer involved shootings and i was in a situation where the anger in the room was an 11. there was incredible mistrust in the

community and they see the officer having the advantage and they don't like the immunity that the law gives an officer at the scene. when this happened recently, our city leaders agreed to rebuild the public trust in law enforcement. the idea was to purchase and now that the officers with body worn cameras. however if the policy is written in a way that allows the officers to video the video before their write the report then there is a transparency and accountability and also defeats the purpose of having this camera in place as a secondary witness. i agree with commissioner hwang. in seeking officer accountability and

trust. i conclude that from viewing the video in camera in certain circumstances. the carved out circumstances. we are talking about three here that are trying to trap the officer. i disagree with that. i believe in putting in place a new process that is protecting the officer and protecting the integrity of the investigation. what we saw at those hearings was incredibly polarized community with the poa's position. i think we need to reach a compromise. i went back and looked at the notes and there was not a consensus on the issue with this. so, i think we need to think about the community rebuilding the trust and doing it in such a manner that it is fair and it's accountable for both sides. i mean, i already said it last

time whether or not an officer is going to make a volunteer statement is not an issue for this commission because our task is something different to come up with a fair and equitable policy that will protect both, the protection of the accountability of the officer and building trust in the community. one of the things i want to point out and i don't know if i can move onto this, b is somewhat nonsensical to me. a member is a subject of a criminal investigation, period. i'm not is you -- sure what that means and how that would even play. for many years being on the commission as an officer involved or subject to a criminal investigation, i'm not sure if this is meant to reflect an officer in the field, that is b. and c, i have to tell you at the discretion of the chief of

police, i believe less discretion is better in a policy than more discretion, but i'm just wondering if we are putting chief in a position at a preliminary stage to actually consulting whether videos can be viewed in terms of writing police reports. i don't think it's proper to put the chief in that type of predicament and this puts an unwarrant pressure on the chief and this is a loop hole and i don't see why it should play out and this should be a policy that is straight forward. use of force should be included in the carved out section. >> thank you, commissioner

dejesus. commissioner marshall? >> so i'm glad that we are discussing and not doing any action because i'm confused about it more. to me what got me here is not what specifically happened around san francisco but around the country. what got us here is michael brown and the gentleman in new york and the one in cincinnati and the little boy and in cleveland, ohio. those are the ones that brought us to these points, those huge high profile incidents which affects all departments. so as i'm going through this and i'm looking at all of these incidents and i'm going to look back now and take more time. i have done a cursory look at how much the reporting played in part of what i saw in the

camera. what got somebody video it and it looked like misconduct and the report says something that was different that happened and/or played a part at all. i'm a member of the public and working with young people. i'm going to have to take a look at those things when it came to what brought us here today. so that's what's going to be going through my mind as i go through these things. that's why i wanted to hear different arguments. i don't really get into because i'm not a lawyer, i don't get into what this lawyer is going to say and this criminal investigation or that criminal investigation. i understand the public mistrust.

the officer feels strong and the public feels one way. i don't know if there is a right or wrong answer but i'm trying to look at what brought us to this point and we have to carve out the policy and it gives me something more to look at especially looking at those incidents that brought us these reports and what played into those. >> thank you, doctor marshall. i want to speak on this matter. what came out of the working group that this policy has to strike a balance on interest. what i heard from commissioner hwang is absolutely true that the use of cameras that is the goal of trust and critical that officers view the body worn cameras as a tool to improve investigations and

public safety and a tool that serves them as well. i think it's important that we recognize that is one of the things we are attempting to achieve. i'm a little bit concerned with the way we developed the policy in some ways highlighted areas of difference as opposed to all areas of consensus. like in this conversation we have set it up if we want public trust that we don't threat officers view the video, if we care about public trust we make sure we don't. you know what i mean. if we care about public trust, they don't view the video and if we care, they view it. after going through painstakingly through everyone of these provisions. it's we agreed to all of these

instances that you shall have the camera on and if you turn it off you shall explain why. there are so many provisions on this policy that is so incredibly transparent. i can't believe we still have about 50 people in the audience and that we are incredibly transparent to advance this and whether or not to buy into this policy is whether or not the officers view this video. i think it's an important issue and one of the things that i'm most concerned about, the reason i think it's important from the literature that officers believe it's a tool for them that none of this even matters if the camera is not turned on. right? we can say you shall and we can enforce it and it's going to be the new normal but also incentivize it if it

camera is turned on. we have seen dismal compliant rates. i would like to focus on the compliance rate of our officers and recognize the factors that cause that to go down in other places and balance that interest really thought fully because if we are in a situation where we are finding that our officers aren't turning them on and we are going through the various steps of discipline, that's one approach, but another approach is to be really clear with both the officers and the public how it benefits everyone. i wanted to frame that and to remind everyone that it's important that the public buy into this program and for the officers to buy into this program. where i'm coming down after thinking about a lot of this as a litigator that i believe it would be a mistake for an

officer to video the video and change their statement. i think that would be setting themselves up to be caught in a lie. one thing that this commission is very clear about the officers and through progressive lying is not tolerated by this department and led to termination. an officer caught lying is taken very seriously and clearly violating the trust that the police put in officers trust and if an officer is caught in a lie, i'm confident that on behalf of this commission and if there is no incentive to do that. but there is incentive to tell the truth both because it will benefit them through the criminal system and through the administrative system. i also believe the department and there might be some piece of

developing an admonition to the police officers that their perception is different and their statement should include both. i think there is a way to do that that would preserve. i do agree with commissioner dejesus, the jurisprudence on the use of reasonable force, we have an interest in memorializing their perception and the officers have a chance to view and what is actually on the video in a way that have everyone see this program that will assist them in the long run. that's how i see this. i feel like the commission is divided on this issue. the question that i would pose is whether we want to provide a common of

options. i think folks, i think commissioner turman has not formulated his opinion either, it sounds like joe marshall hasn't. there is room for discussion. my suggestion if we want to give a little bit of talk to for the folks who want to change the language if there is some drafting suggestions that we can do and the final vote would be obviously december 2nd. that would be my suggestion but i'm open to other suggestions on that point. >> commissioner hwang, do you want to have two options to vote on december 2nd? do you want to change your mind? >> i don't know that i have a second option. i'm thinking through some kind of balancing and again it could be something like it's at the

discretion of the investigating officer. i don't know that i have one second option. other think i'm more influenced about trying to preserve. i agree with everything you said, but just this one aspect of public trust. >> i wanted to add something to the carve out. i would leave it the way it is but add something and would like to inquire more and get a better understanding why the discretion of the chief of police was there. >> okay. we can ask commander sullivan as to why the chief would have the discretion. i think the chief might want to answer that. >> again, in those instances that aren't prescribed in the other two, it's ultimately my responsibility if i want to exercise an exception that's not named. so it would be me or

my designee would make that call. >> again, it's actually, it would be stopping someone from viewing the video. you would be stopping someone. it's not you allow someone. you stop someone. so i say even though this is something else, you don't get to view the video. time out. >> that's helpful. and i would like some draft language and i think use of force should be in there. >> do you want to provide some direction now to sergeant kill shaw? >> maybe not now. i would add use of force to abcd. i would leave it right now because you can't see it on the following circumstances. this is a carve out exception. >> you would arrange the circumstance to view it before the interview. >> so this language allows that. arrange the viewing prior to

the interview. they get to video it prior to the interview. there is a pause in the proceedings. >> i would change the language if i'm able to think about that. because obviously my position is for the carve out they should not review the video until they give their initial statement. >> the language would be for sergeant kill shaw, for the above listed circumstances the departments or administrator will not allow the member to arrange the viewing of the body worn cameras until the initial statement is given then they will be allow to video the video and be given an at some point to do a supplemental. sergeant, if you want to draft an option along those lines and i

would also say, feel free to look at other language from other departments that are similar to that. you know, and again, >> one of the languages here that the officers review that he should not be allowed to review the video until the officer has provided a formal statement and officers should be permitted to include a supplementary report, something like that. >> okay. so here is not surprisingly, section f which we spent a lot of time talking about is one where so far the policy should track the same. we'll have two options on section k and i think you have support direction on that >> okay.

>> any other discussion points on section f or questions? >> i'm sorry. i didn't see your name. >> you asked whether we should have two proposals and i think that based on the discussions we have had today, we should have another proposal because otherwise when we take a vote it's going to be a yes or no and we are going to have to go back to the drawing board and instead we can have two proposals that we can vote on, we can vote on either proposal and i would say that f would be a maybe may view all the way to the testimony and that would leave it at that >> okay. so as is. >> as is, but delete except.

all the exceptions. so it would be -- >> you want to delete," no exception ". >> okay, the one sense that i have though from the department just as a point of clarification factually and the way things roll out is that these are enumerated situations where the officer and there would be a break also in their ability to view the video. there is a separation officer involved shooting in custody death, one of these instances. >> right, they would still get to video the video. >> but like to the point, they are not a reporting officer whereas i get to go and watch it right away. this sort of reflects the current policy around the way it would be investigated. it just reflects that an officer is treated differently so there is no perception that i'm an

officer involved shooting and i don't get to video the video right a way. >> right. so you view the way it is drafted. okay, hearing nothing further on f, let's go to g. in case you didn't hear, dr. marshall tells me good job. section g. for folks following along, as we've discussed this is where officers submitting an incident report or completing a written statement shall indicate whether a body worn cameras is activated and if it's activated prior to the conclusion of the event should document the reason prior to the recording. if a member reactivates the body worn cameras after taken off the

member should document this. if a member determines that officer of public safety would be compromised if a body worn cameras was activated, the member should have a written statement or memorandum for reason for not wearing the camera. section g, what we've heard i already raised my drafting point which i felt that this would be a good to cross-reference on sections when you terminate. that was my only flag on this section. i don't know if other folks have any flags on g. >> in g do you want a section here that if a superior officer makes an

order and that officer has to write a statement as to why they make that order? >> i think that's a good catch to make a point to make that crystal clear that they would also be required to include the reason. that's a good catch. thank you, sergeant. >> commissioner hwang? >> there was a discussion around is there going to be any monitoring patterns. is there risk management to notify to track a pattern if a particular officer is always turning it off or deactivating maybe not in this policy but to make

sure it was compliant and this tracking when the video is turned off to track the pattern. >> we are going to have to go another point on that. i think consequences is slightly different. i share your question. i actually go around subsection h and j i do think some of these are fairly technical but there is sufficient tagging incidents that would allow for particularly instances where the department might want to conduct random checks but also might want to in the aggregate use some of the various technologies to listen for voice modulation for training purposes. that's where i got if this policy gives sufficient room for the department to view the footage to learn for

training purpose. but like you i'm not sure that is in this section. commander o'sullivan or director hicks, was there a discussion of that at the body worn cameras committee? i know there is a discussion that people didn't wanted supervisors to unfettered, buffalo sabres -- but there is an interest to identify pattern problems and training issues. i don't know if that came up. >> i know under policy where we speak to program administrator no. 6 conduct periodic and body worn cameras in the computer server. we could specify, we can give more clarity wraurdz with regards to the use when we speak to audits.

>> in this section where that would be the place. >> under program administrator on page one. >> much to my chagrin, for a moment we are going back to section 2, subsection c 6 on page one conducting periodic and random audits and body worn cameras and does include that administrator and the risk management office which has the authority to do that. so does that satisfy your question, commissioner hwang? >> it's generic. it could cover that. i remember reading some other department where the officer had on multiple occasions, every time

there was use of force they just turned off their cameras. >> there is two ways to address that. one way is i think one suggestion i have is that as a commission we set a 6-month deadline and ask the department to conduct and audit of compliance for the first 6 months when the cameras are on. for me an issue at the very top is officers turned their cameras on and there can be a grace period where they are learning the technology. but the e 85 data, it's a new normal and the cameras need to go on and if you are not turning the cameras on, that needs to be addressed sooner than later. i know with the e 585 data, it's dependent on citizens complaining. it can be found because they brought a complaint because you look at the ticket and it's not on there. my sense is there is not a proactive

auditing of that data, which is a separate issue but i think you are making the point commissioner hwang that we should probably explicit that at least fore 6 months that we do want an editing that is not required for citizen complaints that folks are turning it on. commissioner chief is chief suhr? i don't know if that's a promotion. don't answer that. [ laughter ] >> whenever an officer right now fails to do something that we are required to do they are subject to progressive discipline. like to fail to do a 585, failure to appear in court, on a first miss they get ian admonishment which is not a discipline, not on the allegation, they can sustain, if they give an

explanation and certainly at the beginning if they have a good explanation, it wouldn't count on a first time but on a sustain, like i forgot would not be a good excuse. you would get an admonishment and the second reprimanded and the second time a suspension and if you keep going you end up here. and you see on failures to appear in stuff before. that's the progressive discipline and we can track through internal affairs how many people have been admonished. >> i think that's an example of a 585 that is a fairly routine thing that can get you in trouble with your leadership with progressive leadership with this commission. my question is how did we know they didn't turn the camera on

without some proactive auditing process because we want to make sure there is a process that makes sure we are checking and not waiting to hear they are not turning it on. >> again, we can do a random audit, but on cases that are described here like detentions and arrest body worn cameras videos would be an attachment to this report. all the officers would be doing the paperwork or it would be the automatic check whether it's not there, there would be the public investigator and the use of force laws, people are going to want to know why it's missing. >> so, okay, i think there are

definitely checks and balances in this case and we can talk about what data we want after 6 months and there are some benefits that we can capture all of that. >> i want to assure the public that as we get citations on the e 585 the officer won't be able to finish the tag because the e 585 would be a required field. >> which is what rerefer to the public that you know what an e 585 is, i apologize. it's a requirement that any traffic citation that the person cited is included in the ticket. if that information isn't there, the officer is subject to discipline. that won't happen to citations. >> as long as we are having that there, it's required by the legislation by supervisor cohen for pedestrian stops, detentions and field

interviews. >> all right. i'm going back to g to say we are good. >> commissioner, before we go on and again to go backwards. i just got from commissioner dejesus and to be transparent, she did provide language. i don't know if you want me to read that. this is for section f. >> sure. >> she's proposing as a second alternative. officer shall not view the recording until after the officer providing a full statement and after the full statement, the commission coordinator -- >> no. i will read it. you left out all right. >> officer shall not review the

recording until after the officer has provided a formal staple. after providing a formal statement the department of administrative or criminal investigator will coordinate with the members legal representative to arrange the viewing of the body worn cameras recording and officer is permitted to submit a report after the viewing of the video. >> thank you. that's helpful. let's move on to section h. section h is storage and use of recording. so the main thing that i have on this is that it is about a member who is recording an event shall upload the footage prior to his or her watch unless instructed to do so sooner by an investigating or superior officer and shall carry each identification

and recording number and category title to ensure it's accurately retained. this is for city attorney that ab 69 gives some guidance and practices around this and the purpose of avoiding tampering and to be clear who can upload it. i would just flag that it's possible in the policies that we get back that there is language that the city attorney has recommended regarding storage and the best practices set out in the legislation. does anyone else have other comments on this section? okay. section i. duplications and distribution. this is broken into two

departmental request and non-departmental request. the first lays out if the first one wants body worn cameras and who is in charge of that whether it's the commanding officer would have distribution of the files and the sergeant distributing the report and the distribution of the body worn cameras footage going in the package for the d. a.. recording shall obtain prior approval and lays out as to who shall approve it and those listed are the needs to right to know and the best practices showed up in ab 69. it needs to be clear that officers are not to download this video and bring it home and show their friends and god forbid put it on social media. that is what that section

speaks to and then when releasing body worn cameras footage to comply with law. and the public request act compliant to state and local law. members shall comply with booking process and when requested by the occ, the members of the legal division shall provide recording with the commission's policy on these request. so this section sort of does implicate the larger issue of when people can access the body worn cameras. it involves m section two that the way it is currently drafted is not always heard in public meetings and we get

more clearer about what circumstances in certain high profile instances when the recordings are provided to the public is another issue. i just wanted to frame those to see if commissioners had varying points. commissioner dejesus? >> the los angeles policy when you talk about releasing it, they articulate discipline as to any of that like section 7 of the l.a. order that list any unauthorized use or violation of confidentiality laws include serious misconduct and serious action. that prohibition of modification recording and may not modify any of the video recording except by law

or policy and any misconduct can be subject to discipline. not only turn it on but an unauthorized release. that is a certain issue about loading that to social media. >> so i think that i will pull that out for the violations of this policy being subject to discipline. we want to include that language specifically. but folks want to talk about the language around non-departmental request? i will say that on balance even some of the documentation i think that we got from perf and ufc that officers should view the video first. i think the counter balance to that to the point that we are trying to inspire public trust was to provide

clarity when the video will be available to the public. i would say those that argue for the officers having the ability to view the video that policy and folks benefit from the transparency of knowing when the public will be allowed to view the video. that's what i wanted to hear from other folks on. on that balancing act that how this holistic policy provides clarity and there should be a whole section of issues we should discuss and factor into. >> about that, and i know for a while, we finally came to the conclusion about releasing the name and we had a time table on that in terms of releasing to get folks clarity about releasing the names of officers and what are your thoughts about footage like this? >> so again, i think it's a

subjective thing in a case by case. sometimes it might be in the best interest, sometimes it might not. i also think that you know with speaking to serious discipline the violation of anything in a para military, with misconduct and discipline. to add that in one order. the officers understand the violation of any general order is subjects them to discipline. to add that into one general order and leave that out of all the others because there is not in any of them, it's understood would mean that one general order carries more weight than the other including like use of force and things like that. the officers understand from

pretty much at the police academy that anything that says shall is a direct order from the chief and any breach of that subjects them to discipline. i don't know if that's the okay in l.a. they may say in every order. they may have a catch all at the end of every order. >> this is delineated in every paragraph. >> that maybe the case of all of their policy . >> they may also say at the chief's discretion. it's not the same process. >> but the concept is what i'm getting at. >> there have been face sheets on new orders before and we can put whatever we want in that face sheet. it doesn't have to be in the four corners of the orders because with the violations of this order

especially with the many shals in this order it's an indication that we are serious about this. >> it's a little apples and orientation -- oranges. this is the general order. i want to move on to something else you were touching on, maybe when you were talking about the release of the video. >> that's what i was referring to. there was onement -- letter where we can ask if the video is released to the greatest extent possible to investigatary concerns. maybe something like that. i don't know if we can have a time frame on that i don't know if that's possible. >> so i think in a lot of the cases where the body worn cameras

could involve civil action where we don't release a lot of information where there is civil litigation pending. right now for instance the highest profile case we have in the police department is in supreme court and all the documents with regard to that are under protective order. i don't think this is going to be entirely up to just to the police department what gets out. >> you are right. i don't believe, well, i just remember, the concern over the releasing of the names of the officers. and we actually came to a policy around that. you know after a certain amount of time. you are supposed to come here and say any names. i don't know if this even fits in that category. but i can see the public saying i want to see the video. >> there is a law passed that you have to put the names of the

officers t immediacy of putting those names out is more of a decision that we put a name out within 10 days of that town hall that we have. the matter where this is viewed strongly and the question of public trust. the question is where is the video and when do i get it. i don't know that people at home are going to say i'm really upset that

officer got to view the video before the statement. but they might say, no one has explained to me why i can't see that video. i agree with you that there are statutory and investigatory reasons that you can't nor will it be a reason in terms of public safety for reasons you may not view the video but to state in a document to reflect our policy in. it your interest to share as much information as you can whether we can say to the greatest extent possible considering privacy, statutory and investigative concerns that's statutory to release the video

to categories that do limit you. it's sort of like what makes it clear what the factors are that you are evaluating. that would be a suggestion. i don't know if folks have thoughts about that. >> i have a question. how does oakland do it. does anybody know? i know that oakland has done it. that's what the public wants to see is the video. that will bring the trust. the question is i noticed in oakland, i would following this in a recent incident. they didn't release it to the news. but they actually brought the family members in of the individual member involved and showed them the video with the attorney. >> and the media. >> now there is an issue whether that created it as a public record and subject to public record and immediate disclosure. >> maybe we should refer to the city attorney on this and get an

opinion. >> i think what our commissioner loftus is is saying is part of the policy should be with all of those protections that it is a policy to release it if you can. >> and obviously it's also intended to be clear that there can be a sense in the public that the reason you give it a change from members that again from balancing what we are creating the public trust. that i would like to know the factors that you are going to weigh the factors whether to release it or not and again if you are the chief of police and it doesn't lock you into that and as a policy matter these are the things that you factor in and it would be based on those. >> to do that would succinctly be within federal state and policy. we have policy in place already

with what we are able to give to the public. with regard to other documents. >> okay, i saw the commander come up voluntarily so i feel you want to say something. >> to answer commissioner mazzucco's questions. i will read with regard to what oakland says about these request. public record request shall be accepted and processed in correspondence with -- accordance with state and statutes. we reference public policy and we do reference the statutes for investigative reasons such as homicide or some other type of case. we may choose to retain that video so

it does not compromise the case fort duration of the case. >> commissioners, folks have thoughts on this? >> whatever you say. worn them down. >> okay. my sense, folks is that it might be helpful to have some maybe a sentence or two with just a policy statement of the interest and releasing video where possible based on in correspondence with provision with local and state and federal statute. that the language is good in that section and maybe adding a piece on some of the specific factors that will weigh in there. does that sound right, folks? >> yes, perfect. >> all right. okay. moving on.

j. retention. okay, section j, so i think this is actually an area for some discussion, but it's mostly going to turn on ab 69. i'm looking at the city attorney. retention, there was significant discussion among working groups where retention was going to be an issue and cost prohibitive and where an investigation isn't tagged they say to delete it after 60 days which i think is very instructive to us as best practice. so i think this is a section where i would ask the city attorney to compare the two and make a recommendation to us that we are following the best practices around retention. i'm looking to the chief to see if he has specific thoughts. >> if i recall i think the city has a rule that maybe we need to research. i believe it's to a year. >> i don't think we have to follow every recommendation, but it's

a best practice i think in terms of the overall part of the cost prohibitive nature of having so much but we have to comply with san francisco's law on how long we have to retain every record. thank you chief for that we are lucky to have the city attorney help us. any other thoughts on j? okay. we are on page six, people. k, accidental or unintentional recordings. this has to do if a body worn cameras unintentionally captures, at the may indicate the date and time summary of this unintended recording and shall be retained to the officer and appropriate action taken.

this seems pretty straight forward. i don't know if you have comments or discussions? no. >> next item. members reviewing recording should remain focused on the incidents captured by the body worn cameras and relevant to the scope and if a member is showing misconduct should be notified to the superior officer, duties of the superior officers nothing to prohibit this policy violation. this was taken from the san diego police department which has sometime had a body worn cameras policy around the discovery of potential misconduct to remind the superior officers of their obligation. do folks have comments on this last

section? comments on section l? okay. no comments on section l. okay. the last thing that i think i would close out is commissioner dejesus suggestion on the failure to comply. i do hear the chief saying that's not way the general order is drafted so it would be an outlier. for at least for the initial 6 months that we can put a face sheet to make it very clear. based on what we know about the difficulty and the new normal in turning it on we want to make it clear what the consequences are but don't want to make it such an outlier that in some ways would create a different order. does everyone agree with that? okay. we've come to the end of six 6

pages and i think we've provided sergeant kill shaw with some direction on the two options to provide us with and now would be the time to, petra, you are here now, we are at the last section if you want to add something. i didn't even give anyone a bathroom break. >> it's not healthy. >> maybe a nap break. okay. i will just say in wrapping up

this discussion that part of what this commission has is this is not a normal way we do policy but this is a new normal for the police department and every piece of it we wanted folks to weigh in on it and well will vote on the direction. i do need to note that throughout this process that does not mean the final adopted policy will exist on december 2nd but this commission has agreed on the direction we are giving to the folks who will take the policy through the confer process which is a labor law requirement which will happen through the peace officers association and once that process is complete it will come back to us for final adoption. when all of those pieces are finalized. so just so everybody is clear on the process. that's what's going to happen next. now at this time i will ask if there is any public comment on item 3.

>> public comment? public speaker: hello. aclu of northern california. an organizer, not an attorney. i don't sit behind a desk. i talk to community members, i hear about their concerns and one thing i want to push back is on the idea that san francisco is different. san francisco is many documented incidents that are now. the community is concerned. perhaps following people on twitter. the san francisco police

commission holds a certain function in this department to hold police accountable. the best way to ensure that officers who are witnesses to a shooting that they are treated as everyone else and they don't get special treatment. that is an incredible aspect to building community trust. these amendments have been explained through several letters from the aclu, color of care, change to justice, the voices to these amendments and many of the members of the working group as well voiced their support of these amendments. and there is additional news articles out today talking about this issue, talking about where people are landing. it's not an unusual thing we

are asking. richmond police department does this, san jose police department does this, oakland police department does this. in anyway that san francisco might be different is that san francisco is assuming that you have a different environment that you don't have to follow through those best practices but that is not the case. the nypd suggested that in hindsight the nypd policy should have had this. and hindsight 50/50 you have the better turn the -- opportunity to learn here and make a better choice. when a person has lost their life and when a family is grieving and the officer's conduct, this is not the time to be concerned about how the officer is treated but rather moving forward to be sure that we are rebuilding community

trust and i ask you move in that direction and not in the opposite direction. thank you. >> next speaker. public speaker: hello, thank you. my name is rebecca. i'm a concerned citizen. i'm confused about this idea that people seem to have that the recordings reflect the truth 100%. we've already talked about the limitation that it's on the front of the officer is captured ed in one direction. in front of the microphone. we don't know how sensitive that is and this is one reason that i articulated in the past meeting that it's important to get the officers perception first and treat the camera as a secondary witness. i also agree with commissioner dejesus closing statement at the last

public hearing for the body worn cameras policy to para phrase that supplemental reports after viewing body cam footage may have to become common procedure when an act of violence or engaging in a violent act towards civilians. i want to reiterate, i use the word "suspect" i don't think that's incorrect. i think there are cases where police are suspected of doing wrong and that's why we are all here. i would also like to remind everyone that body worn cameras are a hot topic right now, not because the officers affect their ability to write reports but police officers in the united states are unjustly beating and

murdering civilians. again, body cam are not for police, they are not to be used for surveillance. they are being implemented for my benefit and for that of everyone else who needs to be able to trust the police officers that are allegedly here to protect and serve. >> thank you. next speaker. public speaker: my name is allen frame and i'm also a concerned citizen. i heard something earlier tonight that i specifically want to refute and partly related to the connect -- context that we are talking about tonight about a gentleman who got up and compared this police force to a fascist regime. i am not antipolice. people are looking for more transparency when an officer is in

a critical situation, they are not antipolice, they are looking for justice. i have heard a lot of times tonight about when an officer is put in a difficult situation and we have to keep in mind that this provision would be for the point 01% when an officer is truly a bad guy and giving different testimony than perceived at the time. it was brought up in these critical situations that it's very hard to remember things, the number of shots is incorrect. given that that's true and that there is often incorrect reporting on the original report, isn't the problem of gotchas something that we are already dealing with? why is this any different. it is going to provide a follow up, but gotchas, i don't see why that's going to change. i also want to ask

in jurisdictions where there is a carve out for critical incidents, isn't there any evidence that discrepancies between incident reports and reports after the viewing have been used unfairly against the officer. i have not heard of that happening. so the experience of course is still being built up. i think it's very important that we are talking about the.01% of the cases where something has truly gone wrong and the officer's perception that it was their deciding factor to use force. i think it's very very important. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. good evening and welcome. public speaker: my name is jody and also a concerned citizens. i think we are losing sight of who the

body cameras are to serve. the officers should not be impacted about whether or not they are able to view the video footage. the body worn cameras are not an officers tool. the body worn cameras are not an officers tool. the cameras are a secondary witness that ensure officers transparency and public trust. officers should not get special privileges when they are suspects in critical incidents. and they are suspect. i said at last meeting and i will say it again, allowing an officer to view the video is not transparency. in addition there should be consequences for officers who do not have their cameras on prior to incidents. the video must be accessible to

the public. san francisco can become a beacon of transparency for the rest of the country in the current climate where more and more people are demanding an end to police brutality. do you stand to protect the public from this liability or protect the police. >> next speaker. >> public speaker: good evening, members. i'm with a party in san francisco. listening to your discussion and i was glad to hear it and i hope you do discuss the open policy and that should be the new norm. the three key issues i think that are problems with the policy the way it is written now that i strongly urge you to fix and first is that there are

no disciplinary measures specified in the policy itself for officers violating this policy and i think it needs to be right there in the same document for members of the public to see so they don't have to reference a bunch of other documents they may not be familiar with. the progressive discipline outlined by the commander at first admonishment and suspension should be spelled out in the policy and in a way that's transparent to the public which officers are subject for which incidents. that leads me to the second point, a big problem with this report which is there is no specificity as president loftus was pointing out the public would get to access these voos -- videos and that is going to be

a huge perception problem and the reality that the public doesn't have access. once the videos are made, they should not be in control of the police department anymore. that should be kept in mind. the independence police agency should have physical custody of the videos. if officers need to ak -- access them for a specific purpose then identify that purpose. the video should not be in the custody of the sf p.d. and they shouldn't determine who gets to see them or any of that. it should be spelled out in the policy and handled independently of the police. third point, there is too much discretion in the policy for the officers and the department as a whole on things like when the cameras can be turned on or off. we need the language suggested

by commissioner dejesus that officers shall turn a camera prior to incidents and officers should not be treated different than a suspect. they are suspects in this case and the previous comment was right on that. thank you. ; next speaker. welcome and good evening. public speaker: . most of what i wanted to say was commissioner dejesus has already mentioned it and brilliant minds. we think alike. but i did want to say this, how we got here is because from 2005-2013 we've we have had 19 police

involved fatalities. so that's how we got here. that was prior to michael brown. i'm a san franciscan. we are unique. we had our own problems going on here. i did see hardening laying on the ground. i had faith in our chief because i knew him at portrero. moreover i have faith because a few years ago i had some issues, i had chapman but i think he's commander now. you know what, i commend you on that because we need to see more people like tony chaplain up moving up and stuff so we can see that we are being represented. we are not going

to, that you do care about these shootings. i know that you do, but i'm talking about rank and file. everyone is not like you like chaplain and in northern because i ran into another officer in mission where i was raised in the vernal heights in the ingleside and he treated me just like a dog. so i'm just saying. that's 1% that we have to deal with. so we want transparency for all. so we need these body cameras so like commissioner dejesus said. just like you jump out of your car, just like your gun is in your holster, you make sure your camera is activated and that will eliminate a lot of this dialogue. plus the officers don't have to have the responsibility of when to try to predict human behavior. they are not able to do that.

so to eliminate an extra charge to the officers and to ensure the public safety, forget that. just activate it just like you make sure your gun is loaded, you activate your camera when you get out of that car because you don't know when something is going to be escalated to cause harm to the public our yourself. >> thank you. any further public comment. good evening and welcome. >> good evening, jeffrey king with the society of professional journalist. i just want to briefly make 2 points about transparency. one is that over the course of body worn cameras to other available departments we have seen time and time again departments claiming that they are exempt from the california public records act and that in this capacity which i stand here today i very

much hope the commission and the department will take very seriously the obligation to be transparent to ensure that it is complying with the spirit and letter of the california public records act. to that secondary point and this is me speaking a little more as an individual, but i was surprised when i learned a while back that opd had disclosed these videos of these police shootings to members of the public and the media and then at least allegely claimed that it did not constitute a waiver in the california public records act and that is not really much of a question and that's pretty clear cut that it was a waiver. thank you. >> okay. thank you. any further public comment?

good evening again, juicy. public speaker: hi. i wonder why i stayed so long. i thought about myself, 1973 where it was the first time i saw a gunshot where my friends mother was there and we have seen five gunshots. she killed her boyfriend because he was abusing her and in 1986 my brother was killed in chicago. january 3rd, '86. first time i road in a limousine to a funeral and the next time is rodney king being beaten on the freeway and the shootings we are having lately involve with police and people,

i always thought they were there to protect and serve us and now we are in an age where we need to have policing to make it better for us. and we look how the gentrification of our land pushing people out that you should not be on the streets doing drugs. i know more people will be at a target to be harmed. and i just pray that one thing i noticed that i was saying why shouldn't i have a police report ready by the officer before they look at the report and like what you thought you saw and then view it and both of them are pretty good contrast to see something. i didn't come here really today, i came to see who really won the

elections but i came for the body worn cameras. i really hope they have cameras in our hotels and in the community where people feel safe inside. we think about the streets but we don't think about life inside where people deal with. i think there is a time where we can take humanity and make it better and cover more than we are because we are at that point where it's like one world, one people, one life for all of us. i think we all should be very happy to stay here. i cried, i slept. i went through a lot being here tonight but it was really worth it because i think about how violence and lives have affected my 54 years in this country. i know we can do this and we have to do this. thank you very much. >> thank you, is there any

additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. please call the next line item. >> item 4. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 6 below, close session on whether to hold item 6 in close session. >> in public comment on pertaining to matters to item 6 below. public speaker: good evening again. i would encourage you to accept to the degree which you are mandated by law to discuss something in closed session to conduct your business openly. these folks are public employees being paid for with taxpayer money. i think the public has a right to hear how they are performing and how oversight is being applied to

their performance. you know, this is a key function of good government and without that kind of sunshine knowing how someone is performing we get a disservice. i hope you will take that seriously and not just pro form it into public closed session. thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. sergeant please call next line item. >> item 5, vote on whether to hold item 6 in closed session. san francisco administrative code, action. >> do i have a motion okay. >> we are back on the record in open session. just for the record we do

still have a quorum. >> i don't see that we are being covered. >> here we go. okay. sergeant? can you call the next -- line item item 7 vote to elect whether to disclose or any or all discussion on the item 6 held in closed session. >> can we have a motion not to disclose? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye". >> aye. >> any opposed? . motion passes. >> i would like to ask that we adjourn in honor of san francisco officer who retired on a medical disability

and passed away last week. he was star no. 95 and that number stayed with his family for over 100 years. he circumstantial evidence in -- served in the san francisco police department in 1983 and also a former teammate of mine and officer passed away leaving his wife and four children. i would like to adjourn in honor of officer cliff fogerty. >> can we have a motion to adjourn in memory of officer cliff fogerty? >> motion >> second. >> all in favor say, "aye".

>> aye. >> any opposed? we are adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >>

>> i have 2 job titles. i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected

mayor of san francisco in 1912. he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of 1913. in december 1915, the building was complete. it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art. those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an enormous french population.

therefore building a palace in the art tradition is not unusual. >> jimmie was an incredible individual he knew that san francisco had to regain it's place in the world. he decided to have the tallest dome built in the united states. it's now stands 307 feet 6 inches from the ground 40 feet taller than the united states capital. >> you could spend days going around the building and finding something new. the embellishment, the carvings, it represents commerce, navigation, all of the things that san francisco is famous for.

>> the wood you see in the board of supervisor's chambers is oak and all hand carved on site. interesting thing about the oak is there isn't anymore in the entire world. the floors in china was cleard and never replanted. if you look up at the seceiling you would believe that's hand kof carved out of wood and it is a cast plaster sealing and the only spanish design in an arts building. there are no records about how many people worked on this building. the workman who worked on this building did not all speak the

same language. and what happened was the person working next to the other person respected a skill a skill that was so wonderful that we have this masterpiece to show the world today. all right. good ev everyone and welcome the regularly meeting the san francisco unified school district for tuesday, november 10, 2015, is now called to order roll call. >> ms. fewer mr. haney ms. mendoza-mcdonnell ms. norton mr. walton and ms. wynns and dr. murase. >> ms. chin and mr. totiano thank you. >> please