>> some of the categories has to do with with how police officers should be interacting with the mentally ill we're truth trug looking this my name is the time for the departments training some of the decisions so why not incorporate them into 5.01 the hayes valley the california supreme court has been around it is a civil case that makes this department better other departments look at the entire sequence of events if we looked at a commitment to deesclation and other ways to use minimal force look at the entire scenario we should look at it from the beginning to the end of the california supreme court in looking what reasonable force in that regard we have 4 cases around for a long time and those

are factors that the courts are using in 1983 why not do the best we can do and other law enforcement agencies are incorporated those factors as well. >> thank you ms. miriam commissioner dejesus the proportionality language i got this case letter from the bar association late yesterday afternoon i plowed through that in here said the language is disappearing and people realized that was disappearing and informed the city attorney the city attorney was not part of working group do you know who was returning did drafts by the city attorney and why did they change the language. >> i'm not privy but other meetings no city attorney that was at our meetings and

contributing information at the meeting. >> this is something that mission should consider we did the policy and gave it to 9 working group my understanding from the third mooefrg then when the working group realized the city attorney was chavrng a changing the language there was other language missing and i'm not sure what the city attorney took out i find that disturbing and who is taking this and making the changes we've not looked at the and why not tracked so the working group knew that someone took to the to the city attorney to evaluate the changes we need to talk about that i don't know if they changed anything. >> we know exactly what changed i agree commissioner dejesus we set the policy and the city attorney advised us so we're here to talk about if we agree and want to change back

i'm in agreement that it is clear there were some department indicated indians the department when asked where the changes came from they said the attorney i appreciate about the drop out you brought to your attention there are decisions you flagged them for us i appreciate you bring that up commissioner dr. marshall. >> many miriam i'm not a lawyer help me with many hayes valley case was that a california. >> it is a california supreme court will case. >> so part of issue a lot of the issued is the constitutional standard she keeps on telling me again officers fear for their safety and the suggestion is broad when applied and a lot of feel as a community standard you

know minimal or reasonable how does this hayes valley thing replace or clarify that or- >> how did does that fit into the picture. >> with the hayes standards the california supreme court said in a negligence law enforcement evaluating whether or not an officer used reasonable force not moment but the entire sequence so that you look at the decision making of the officer from the moment the contact started to see at each a way of freezing each frame difficult officer use good tactics and good decision making at the beginning of the interaction and all the way through the interaction to that in part an opportunity to look to see from the officer set in

motion a situation where his or her was forced to use deadly force because of not considering others options a way to look at the decision making and tactics for the entire course of conduct the california supreme court was saying that is a way to look at in a can i feel lawsuit of 1993 you look at the entire course of conduct. >> it didn't replace. >> no, it didn't replace. >> the constitutional standard which is ladder and used as a - i think i understand what you're saying how this all fits together that's when all the cases - >> for example, the los angeles police department i use them as as example so much of their data in the reports were

in like that when they review their commission reviews the use of force what it appropriate when the officer drew their weapon and the tactics before that led up to the actual shooting and evaluate the shooting and look at it each frame whether the officers use of force was ream for discipline sew also to see what went right and wrong and their training division then does a full analysis to see was the officers decision making and ultimately shooting a gun or tasers was that in policy but it is the entire course of conduct that is i mean our agencies recommended that for years then the hayes valley case came out

and continued to recommend this is a better department to analyze the entire course of conduct to see what went right and wrong. >> and this is heart beating but i mean let's face it this constitutionality standard of the officer has the right to do xyz he's fear for his or her safety is broad that way and a lot of people don't thinks have you seen cases around the nation where this use of hayes i think that is a california case has.

>> can we do that. >> that particular to be able to look at the entire force of conduct i would argue they're looking at the entire course of conduct and because they're the entire course of conduct the opportunity to improve but it is also officers can put themselves in situations they themselves have created or circulated situations that didn't need to be circulated that's part of what the courts looked was there an opportunity to do something different in 2, 3, 4 period of time we're carefully landmarking

at deesclation and other alternative transportation it becomes essential to that. >> and people are begging for something to close the gap i i mean obviously policies and procedures but constitutional pieces outs there it is a constitution thing people can i have a right and something to close the gap you're saying that this is something that is being looked to do it that's what i hear. >> that's one piece. >> right. right >> but this is one piece there are many pieces the other critical component we've been talking about deesclation and using alternative take i can see other than force if those alternative transportation take i can see and declarations are framed as

should where an officer has a lot of lewd as an officer shall when feasible that puts in at the core pieces that enable us to royal minimally an force but at the same time give the officers the opportunity when it as fast moving situation and one cannot deescalate their own fear and what is what's happening in the situation those facts and circumstances are considered so it is there's a balance there. >> i understand i'm just trying to get - because again, people go back to the law i have a constitutional right that's the thing out there i appreciate that. >> and dr. joe we've talked about that and there's a constitutional standard a community standard this is the role that commission has in

setting the policy and tasers are a california case and the lapd changed their policy and appreciably it can change the areas of discipline and we don't decide whether it is in and out of policy we had had discipline on the balk end but we think this is one of the mechanisms they've used to increase accountability and situations you might fall under graham vs. connor but you don't fall under the police san francisco police department policies and therefore through there is discipline as a result that's up front and it is understandable there is resistance but the standards of this community. >> so. >> thank you. >> commissioner mazzuco.

>> thank you, ms. miriam you made a comment about what is is a strong general order of shooting at vehicles for and against we have a strong general order the commission put in place under rare circumstances shoot at moving vehicles but letting the public know we have the most restrictive policy the officers are not to put themselves in situations to fire on a vehicle on the only time if they're in a situation the vehicle is coming at that correct. >> with all due respect this is not the most strike policy a time the bludgeon as issued. >> i'm not talking about the policy now. >> itself respectfully disagree if you look at new york and other jurisdictions where there are no exceptions and my

concern is that i look at the number of times officers have shot at vehicles in san francisco there are a number of cases and, in fact, because there are these expectations they have been shootings an officer was shot other a friendly fire and as you well know shooting at a vehicle will not stop the vehicle, in fact, endangers other individual in new york in 1972 over one thousand shootings at vehicle incidents when they imposed strict no exceptions the number was recused by two-thirds and now a hundred a year so across the board is recommending a in exception policy so i again, i urge a no

expectation policy. >> we're limited to the one six and the numbers of shooting has gone up with the new policy. >> that's where commissioner i was looking at the status and 2011 i don't have it in front of me but several shootings at car i'm sorry job have the status but in 20114 out of 8 were shootings at cars where an officer was injured we're licking they have been few pedestrians shot. >> 2014 and 2015 that's where we are at. >> if i pull there was some in 2014 so it is a continuing problem and that's why i urge us to have no strikes shootings. >> the policy the department

is mirror n y pd. >> we're pretty strike and reference to minimal university of california, san francisco versus reasonable reasonable you're an attorney that carries a lot of weight within reasonable expectation of privacy search warrants whether or not this is reasonable cause to do a search i know in medical progressives and professionals whether or not it is reasonable given the standard of care and whether or not they're liable any other discussion will reasonable versus minimal it looks like the totality you've mentioned reasonable any question is there is a rip been

reasonable can we use the language minimal but reasonable use of force would that 0 through off the balance. >> i don't think so we've talked about reasonable use of force and this is the most minimal formals under graham versus connor and across the country and part of what was said repeatedly 3 reports that's the baseline that's what the low standard is we luckily have progressed with different era we're looking at how we treat people across the board especially individuals who have been mentally ill and need a greater standard a minimal residence on force not under the obviously reasonable stated that is when a when shootings are justified even when this is an individual with a blaltd weapon

not a commitment what we can do to better ourselves that's part of this whole movement use mandatory language have deesclation at the center and thoughtful communication at the so that that is truly a minimal residence on use of force sloping as opposed to a standard we lived with it and questioning why do we live with the standard and clearly a community outraged it has brought together the best thinking of the police chief we all, do better across the country and minimal let's move far beyond that obviously reasonable is minimal let's move beyond that is is not just minimum alisa miller but all the other another components if that way i appreciate ♪

situation i think that is two of >> i'll flag the 1995 version was the minimal use of force this not a place we're making not one of the huge changes but consistent with the value that the department held for sometime commissioner dejesus. >> right i don't know if you got this commissioner mazzuco but came out last week, a article on use of force a power point they go over the ground steps they're telling us about and basically they're saying that the minimal threshold standard it the drive for a higher standard and the language the officers understand it is not what we can do but can

you use deadly force or absolutely have to when the decisions are up to that significant issues we can clarify it and make that stronger and that we should so i forgot actually, i put my name up f there a white ago. >> well back to the city attorney i want to know at some point who is taking it to the city attorney and why. >> i don't know from the department chief do you want to say something the commission has a question about the city attorney involvement. >> as prove as the commissioner president loftus suggest track version through one through 3 a draft proposal for this commissioners consideration. >> i went through every single note and didn't see anything

that the city attorney made the change maybe provided a different draft when i think so from this letter the stakeholders changes and they were informed the city attorney made those changes but points with the draft show me. >> i don't have those what i'm saying whatever the old language it is still in the track changes and that's for your consideration to arrive at the final version. >> the original question who took this to the city attorney and why. >> we've had the city attorney involved from version one all the way through version 3. >> were the stakeholders involved with the changes. >> obviously they recorded they were told that. >> they were told at the third session not the process. >> the city attorney was involved in version 3. >> i wanted to say i just want

to know why we're going to the city attorney and not being tracked like the changes that the people see the changes i don't see the working group was working i want to know who was doing that. >> i want to thank the bar association for the tellers work i know you with guys and occ he know the aclu he would say put this together and addressed the ordinances a fair point to transparency a good thing to our point chief 3 reverberations we can change them back here we are other questions for many miriam i have a feeling we might call you back up i know i saw other folks here anyone else miriam were you, you representing the j

and anyone else from the stakeholder groups i know there were a number of groups yes, sir. >> oh, great come on up. >> welcome you have 5 minutes. >> good evening. i'm kevin an society with the law enforcement or louis one of the 7 law enforcement advising this blue ribbon panel on the pro bono and asked to attend the stakeholders meeting. >> welcome kevin. >> thank you to the commission for the blue ribbon panel a voice we were grateful to attend the members of the committee and wear grateful to provide our input in the comments there were two things we said to flag we wanted to express as other comments the strong support for the shall mandatory the core of

the deesclation we that that in our explanation of the shall language was the best fit for the commission trying to reach and the second was our comments only the comment control weapon policy initially we provided a red line to that policy provided in our materials upon further consideration yesterday an e-mail to the the stakeholders saying we decided to withdraw our for the for that red line and instead order to our initial position that we're taking no position on the actually text of the proposed cb order the reason we returned to the earlier position we believe the panel buildings the policies

rewarding the use should be addressed from the use of force division it took a lot of sustained interviews with experts and study to develop our recommendations on the use of force policies we felt there was not enough time in the timeframe to conduct the xaef review of the cd policies a lot of data from oath sources and a lot of different studies we didn't feel we have at capacity to effectively and comprehensively claim that so our recommendations no position on the text itself and the use of this separately so the stakeholders can have more time to fully evaluate the litter on the cds. >> okay. thank you. >> any questions so some of the people at home you're talking

about the tasers the panel is not taken a position on the tasers we have should 53 this separately. >> yes. commissioners that's right. >> we're trying to call that electronic devices otherwise we're given for airtime. >> no position here separately. >> it should be considered separately and no stub active comments on the body of the policies itself we submitted that earlier and they decided to submit that without enough time to be able to learn there is i believe still in our supporting statements a red line to disregard that position. >> we want to atrocity to you guys in this case of there

anything important. >> commissioner wong. >> we've been pushing how do you respond the argument there is a circulation of forced model it is the cbc y how you consider that separate from the use of force. >> i think that would have to be considered if at a at a later date a decision to implement the cds it would have to work within the framework of use of force policies that commission develops now in doing them together much more time to study the deesclation with the team and the stakeholders have not had enough time to study we didn't want a situation the policies were not - given levels of study and considerations you'll have to look at the cds in light of broader use of force

but establishing what that doctrine should be the first step and the cds is a specific method he if i did in the new general order landscape. >> pushing it further what makes the cds different from the other alternative transportation to use of force within the document. >> i think we're asking for be concerned differently commissioner wong we've heard on potential health hazards the effect on compliance with the policies there's other departments that have other departments to look at i know the blue ribbon panel and the bar association task force that operated in a similar fashion they examined an achieve research of literature and given that i can only speak for the

blue ribbon panel we looking at a use of force model spent months and speaking to subject matter experts and asked to join the stakeholders and we didn't have enough to side that examination for cds perfectly possibly based on the model we could take a stance but not the time to integrate the research ousted there and commissioner dejesus. >> i echo that i favor that i wonder you're probably not going to be able to answer that, we had a meet and care of with the poa regarding the use of force i'm not why we do that is that because we're adding a new weapon or cd with the meeting and care of if by the spread out

that with the use of force exception be exempt. >> the city attorney can answer that. >> whatever a change of working conditions that triggers and meet and care of under the policy and spate and depicting from other departments other cities and counties sea police departments that diesel with the act we have our own provisions that talk about the procedures that more complicated by in addition there is other areas wall the tax bargaining that means even if you have a barking right to implement a policy you have to bargain over the effects essential a lot of complicated i gave you a condensed question and hopefully that answers your question it is not easy.

>> that's a legal answer if i ever heard one i'm an attorney thank you, ms. city attorney and any questions for the blue ribbon panel thank you, sir. >> thank you very much. >> great so any other members of the stakeholder group no so here guys for you will have you watching at home i'm sure you poured over the 22 packages from the stakeholder we have verdicts up on the web and includes comments so the commission asked the shareholders where where reasonable minds differ i assume reasonable minds let us know we have 22 pages of comments i want to thank and my proposal thank you to the bar association they got us to the 17 page memo from their prospective lays out some

of the big picture issues for this commission to weigh in on and in looking at the best way to structure the conversation i propose we do march through those i think most of issues that have been raised by he did stakeholders thus far come up in this memo and if not we can i'll ask all the colleagues to pull up any comments on the 22 pages again for people watching this is has been a process and important for the commission to have time to discuss these issues that have been raised i'm going to without objection start patricia there that 17 page -