won't show the real extent of the contamination. i am really concerned. it sounds like the department is caught between the city, the navy and the e.p.s. here and the fact they found this significant radioactive something recently is also concerning. i guess -- i don't know. we have to rely on these government agencies but the government agencies are having an issue among themselves. i mean, i really think we should start looking into getting another -- restoring evidence there. we can find a warehouse to store the evidence. i don't know why we have to wait two years or 18 months to do that. i don't know why we can't look into sharing a lab. are you allowing officers who are young and expect to have children or anything like that, are you allowing them to say i don't want to be stationed at building 606?

are the crime lab people, are they saying you know, this is unhealthy for me and i'm concerned about getting cancer or anything else. are they allowed to say i don't want to work here? i'm more concerned, not just the brass saying they have to stay there, but i'm concerned about the health and the fact the government agencies can't even agree. >> commissioner, there have been several meetings with the personnel that worked there. number one, to inform them and number two, to answer questions and address any concerns that they may have. no one has made that proclamation that they don't want to work there. the communication is on going. i mean, of course, we are concerned about our employees' well-being as well. we don't want anybody in harm's way. the key for us right now is to inform them of what we find out, when we find out so they can make informed decisions and they can weigh in. they do have to work with it and live with whatever comes. >> i appreciate that. is there anyway you can talk

with the e.p.a. about their concerns and what they suggest are the actual test that would be more accurate to determine if there's radio activity, heavy metals or contamination at the site? then be a little more armed to know what tests should be conducted there or have some discussion regarding those tested. >> to that point, i can tell you with regards to the water, everything is being done according to e.p.a. standards. i don't want to miss speak here but i'm more than happy to check with regards to the air and soil sampling. the vendors we will have come into test for potential radio logical contaminants, that would be in accordance with the e.p.a. to your comment about the article on august 17th, i saw the same thing. we do have to -- at this point we're compartmentalizing it and recognizing there's an issue between the city and the alphabet soup of regulators. our focus, as the chief said, is

ensuring the safety of our employees. so we're doing what we feel, under the advise of our partners, our city partners, and vendors, what would be best practices for the testing. >> is there any driving on unpaved roads? i know it's windy up there. are we stirring up the dust going off road. if we are, are we wearing dust to capture the dust and test it on the cars driving in and out and walking in and out on a windy day. >> to answer that, with regards to the dust. as part of the air-born testing there was a member at the crime lab that wore a collection device. those samples were collected. with regards to the roads, i think we're all well aware that the roads are not maintained well. we did have in one of the meetings that we had, the most recent meeting, to my knowledge

we're not driving on unpaved roads. there's a lot of potholes along the route that our employees would traverse in and out. that request has been made through our facility's manager to d.p.w. to actually fix the hot potholes. that issue is more on a mechanical sense. there's water that, when the rainy season starts there's water and the collection. >> have we talked to the mayor about maybe, i forget, 18 months or two year timeframe when we hoped to move our people? have we talked about advancing that in anyway? is that a possibility? >> through the city administrator's office and the real estate team that works in her office, we've talked about the timeline. as far as advancing the timeline, at this point, i don't think that's going to be a reality.

we have had the discussion and -- well, it is a urgent matter for them as well. particularly because of all the issues that had been reported here. it's an urgent matter for them as well. it's still an ongoing discussion as to what we can do to advance it. >> ok. >> thank you, commissioner taylor. >> hi. >> i think you mentioned that the soil testing is kind of an issue that is still outstanding. you are waiting and finalizing contracts with the vender. >> correct. >> do you have a sense when those contracts will be finalized and how long the testing will take before we have results? >> yes, so, i don't think it's going to be much more than a couple of weeks. we actually had expected that the contract with the vender for the soil would be done in september. as recently as today, i had a conversation with our facility's manager. he has a call into d.p.h. to get a status on that contract. i would expect very soon. once that individual's an site

we should have the report back. the timeline has been discussed in early december. >> that's radio logical testing, right? >> correct. >> mr. hamasaki. >> just one last question. commissioner dejesus triggered this with her question. would it be possible for some of the commissioners who have been following this to actually get e that -- review the tests that we're doing to make sure they're consistent with -- i don't know this area so this is my area. either the e.p.a. guidelines. you mentioned best practices. i think it would be good for us on the commission side to know that we are doing the tests and later on we don't get called and say, they did x test but didn't

do y test. would it be possible for some of the commissioners to review. >> yes, i was provided with a couple of the work plans. i will, through sergeant killshaw forward those to the commission. >> again, getting back to the desk, i know we had complaints for four or five years ago when the cars were out there they were covered in a strange mud. cars were filthy dirty and there was a lot of particulates and dust. there was talk about a fire that burned underground for nine months and they buried it and covered it up. we're concerned about this. you are a police officer. you are not an environmentalist. maybe we should reach out to the e.p.a.'s office of inspector general, which handled the criminal investigation on the two individuals who were supposed to be doing the testing but were fabricating the results. i think you should reach out to them.

they have some form of an obligation, unless there's an continuing on going investigation to tell us what they know about this. again, i suggest that we reach out to them and see what they have to offer. >> ok. thank you. >> anything further? >> thank you, very much, commander. welcome back. it's good to see you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next we have commander greg who will present on the rules governing missing persons department 17.086 missing persons assignment criteria and the department general order 610 missing persons. >> good evening. can you just hold on one quick second. this was a request by commissioner dejesus and she

stepped out. congratulations. i hear you are a grandfather. >> for the fourth time, yes. [laughter]

>> thank you. good evening. ms. marion and chief scott, i'm the commander of the san francisco police department's investigations division. i've been asked to present to you some information on or response to missing persons. it's under department general order 610, which came out in 1999, as many of you know. many of our general orders are old. older. it has not changed much to the 1999 policy, which is governed by state law. we have updated our response through department bulletins. the most recent bulletin 17086, which you may have and should have in front of you. so today i'm going to talk about the role of the department in missing persons investigations. we are required by state law to accept a missing persons report from any individual, whether it

is in-person or over the phone. if they are requesting a missing persons' report to be filed, then we are required by state law to take that. there are two forms of missing person reports. for lack of a better term we handle. one is a standard missing persons report. one that may have exceptional circumstances or at risk circumstances that play a different role. when someone makes a missing persons report the aid will take the report. they're required to notify the department operations center within a very short period so they will go back to the station and make a immediate notifications. at the department center, the personnel will enter the person into a missing and unidentified person system. if it is required to be entered within two hours if it's not,

it's within four hours but we generally enter it within the two hour time period. when there is a report that is not exogent, it is assigned to the station investigative teams so he or she would, over the next 30 day period, take actions to try and identify locations that the person may or may not, contact the family. locate the person and if they do, they would close the missing persons with it with a filing persons report. if they do not locate the person within 30 days, that report then gets transferred up to our special victims' unit and they continue the investigation from there. in the average year, we take a more than a thousand missing persons reports. between 1,000 and 1500. this year we're on track to take the same amount as we took last

year. if there are exceptional circumstances in a missing persons, there's certain criteria. that includes if someone is under 12 that is abducted or missing, it's one of the components. if they are over 75-years-old. if the person is lacking cognitive ability to care for themselves. if there's a threat of suicide or harm. the officer is aware of. if the information leaves the officer to know that the person requires immediate medical attention or if the officer expects foul play or believes exceptional facts exist. in those instances there, s.v.u. is notified immediately and is the lead on it. in those instances, at the station level, they assist and they will do a continuous search until it puts you in commander that decides it's not feasible or appropriate. it could be a short period of time if the individual is located. it could be a long period of

time, four or five days. during that time, there are a number of things that may direct the officers to do. going by the house and by in contact with the person who reported it. maybe enter the house if there are other circumstances that have a risen and to try and continuously search for those persons. there have been times where we've had missing children and four or five-years-old and we've done continuous searches for days. there's times with other exceptional ones, because of staffing levels, we may stop the continuous search but it doesn't mean we stop the missing persons report. after the 30 days it's transferred up to the special victim's unit and they continue on from the search. the reason we changed the standard of who was responsible for the investigations, is for a division of labor. our missing persons unit. in the early 2000s had a

number of officers. when we decentralized and sent officers to the station under the investigative teams, we utilized those resources there to assist us. they are at the street level and they can direct officers to assist in the investigation for the first 30 days. if we do have an exceptional missing persons report, even though that will be handled by s.v.u., they will be in coordinations with the stations to follow-up on what continuous searches were done and any other task that they may require station personnel to undertake. and that's how our missing persons reports are handled and i'm more than happy to answer any questions you might have regarding that. >> thank you for waiting. i'm sorry. this is good. this is a good start. i think one of the things people keep asking about is well-being and you know, there's no well-being d. g.o. it seems to follow under missing

persons. when you talk about exogen circumstances, a child under 12, the last one says the officer suspects foul play or beliefs exceptional facts exist, i wonder if you can give me an example of what you mean by exceptional facts or foul play that would constitute exogen circumstances? >> so you are correct of that. there's not a specific order on well-being checks. they can be a component of a missing person. they can be a well-being check for a couple of youth left in the house and they want someone to check to make sure they're ok. it can run the gamut. as it applies to a missing person, we asked the officers who are responding out to look at the circumstances that are presented to them, in front of them at that time, or information they mayor may have from prior responses to the accident. or information they may have from information they have obtained from individuals. make a reasonable decision that

they believe there is an exoden circumstance that they will make it an exogent report or take other actions as they are out there. we rely on them to look at what is in front of them at the time and to make all reasonable efforts to try and locate the person based on the information they have in front of them. we also ask them to converse with their supervisors if they have questions or concerns about whether or not it is a an exceptional circumstance. when it it comes to well-being checks, those are the times where we specifically ask for them to have a conversation with their supervisors about what they have, what they see and what's the next course of action to take. >> if it's not exogent, all other missing reports you have in here shall be assigned to the station investigative team. and then you have, if a missing person is located, you have to

prepare a found report. they shall confirm the identity of the found person and conduct a well-being check on that person. how do they go about identifying the found person and conducting the well-being check on the person? there's a number of ways they can. in the ideal situation, the officer may encounter the person who is now found and is able to identify them through driver's license or missing persons picture. some time the person may be found out of county or state and ask law enforcement agencies to verify if that's the individual. we don't want to have someone call us on the phone and say, i'm joe smith, i'm no longer missing, i'm fine. and it becomes not accurate. we try to make every effort. if we can't we have to leave them in as a missing persons. >> in the middle of the paragraph, it says members shall not use phone calls, e-mails,

text, social media to confirm the found persons return or identity. members are required to see the found person before writing a found person report. can you tell us why that particular language and why social media or telephone calls is not sufficient? >> well, i think as i mentioned earlier, there could be instances where someone reports another person found because there are exceptional circumstances. they could be injured. they could be hurt. there could be some other reason for them not to want to identify that that person has come under some distress. we want to make sure that the officers are able to be certain that that individual is the person that is found. through e-mails, through text, we know we can't physically see the person or have someone from a law enforcement agency verify they're that individual. so we go to those steps until we do. >> would you say this is the best practice in the country is

make the confirmation in-person rather than social media or telephone? >> i would say that's the best practice. that's part of the on going ways. when our order was written, we didn't have social media, e-mails and so fourth. we know we've evolved but we know the limitations. >> i looked at our general order and it's 19-years-old. i do notice the general bolton updated in 2017 and we would use the best practice criteria at that time. >> if you look at our general order and the exceptional or the a risk, they're similar in the missing persons. what has changed is how we investigate them and who we assign them to for a division of labor. that is why in two years we've updated until we can update the general order. >> when it comes to this section that we're talking about, when you want to confirm the identity of the missing person, this

bulletin applies to officers and sergeant and everybody in the police department, is that right. >> it does. >> would there be a -- i don't know the word i'm looking for. a supervisor. would a supervisor be involved when a member comes back and says i've confirmed through telephones, or however i confirmed it, is there a exercise who reviews and signs off on the confirmation of the found person's identity. >> just like any other report that an officer makes, a supervisor is generally -- there's consultation it in it. the supervisor will read the report. he or she is the approving person has obtained the information and read it in there that the officer was verified of the identity of the person. that's how it's confirmed. >> is that uniform throughout our station. is that the way it works? >> yes, all of our reports are signed off by a supervisor and a manager. >> you may not be able to answer this and i won't hold you to it, when i was looking at it, we

have missing persons, elder abuse and child abuse. we have different criteria. i'm wondering, when it's -- is there a different criteria if you get a report of elder abuse? is there a different standard versus the missing person or child abuse? >> wes, we have a component that handles elder abuse. they are the officers and sergeant and investigators that investigate all elder abuse reports. the missing persons is the one that we've divided the labor up because we have so many of them. we need to leverage the personnel that we have at the station. we've divided up the role and responsibility between the s.v.u. and the station investigators at least during that initial 30-day period. >> i just have one other question. when we go back to if an officer suspects foul play or exceptional facts exist under the exogen circumstances, and i guess it would depend on the

circumstances if they would need a warrant or if they would be able to act on their own accordingly in the field? >> well, essentially an officer does not need a warrant to go into a house if he or she has grounds to believe that the inhabitant and the residents is in dangered. based on the information that's in front of them that they have, if they are able to articulate that someone is in danger, if you have someone who is in their 80s and they haven't been seen in a week, reasonable person may believe that because you haven't seen that person for five days that there could be something that is happening and that individual may have passed away or they may have fallen down. those are the things we ask the officers when they use their reasonableness, this is like that, make entry into a house. >> thank you. i appreciate that. >> thank you. >> mr. hamasaki. >> hopefully just a couple of

brief follow-up questions. so, when the department receives a call that so and so is missing. mayor it's their mother calling about their adult child. generally you will send an officer out there and focusing on the language suspecting foul play or beliefs exceptional facts exist, that is -- is that decision at that level s when the patrol officer was sent out to do a initial check in or i don't know what you call it. is that the patrol officer or is that something that is reviewed by, i don't know, whether it's s. i.t. or s.v.u. or supervisor, sergeant, how is that how do we

make sure whoever makes that initial step -- we have officers at all levels, especially in this department, a significant number younger officers. how do we make sure that decision is either being made correctly or being reviewed by a supervisor? >> so, to answer the first part of your question, there does not need to be a missing persons report. someone can say that they haven't seen a family member and are reporting them missing. but they're not actually making a missing persons report. they want us to do a well-being check to look at the individual to see if they're there. an officer's role, when he or she goes out there, is to take all of the information that they have in front of them. because there are so many things they can do, you can't just have a checklist of you do these five

things, you have checked off it's going to be fine. so as the officers go through training and they start to get experience and often times they have conversations with their supervisors, they have conversations about, if you were to respond to someone on a well-being check, what are the things that you could do as you respond out that a reasonable person would do to try and identify whether you can locate that person? and so we asked them to do those things. whether it's look for mail, talk to neighbors to see if they've talked to the individual. to see whether anyone answers the door. are they able to get into a backyard and look for windows. we asked them to do those things. if they do those things and there's other information that make a reasonable person think that -- i don't see this as just a missing persons. there's something amiss in this,

they make a decision to go into that house to see whether or not someone is there. there are all kinds of things we asked the officer to do and overtime, you are able to add things to your tool belt, so to speak, that gives you ideas of things to try to figure out whether that person is there. >> i guess, i'll take responsibility. i don't think my question was asked as clear as possible. so, in the situation with the officer goes out there and makes the determination that oh, this look like everything is ok here. is there someone, a supervisor, that reviews that decision, someone with more experience to determine hey, maybe we should take a double check here. maybe we should send someone out again? >> not necessarily. sergeant may be there and a officer may have a conversation, but they're not required to have that conversation with a

supervisor and -- we respond on so many different things. we can have a officer who responds to a simple assault. we don't have them converse with the sergeant in each situation. the sergeant could give them that information and be part of the decision-making in that but there -- if an officer does what a reasonable officer would do, and they're unable to locate the person, if they don't believe there's exceptional circumstances, then they mayor may not go in if there isn't. they may have a conversation with the supervisor or supervisor may they're and have some information to assist but it's not required. >> and just to be clear, regardless of that initial determination, it still is nothing -- the person is not located, found, identified, it still goes to s.i.t. to continue the investigation for 30 days and then it will go to s.v.u. if the person isn't located in that

time? >> when a missing persons report is officially made, a report and they're entered into the missing persons system, then that is assigned a s.i.t. we mayson out on a call that is a well-being check. the individual whose called does not want toe efficientlily make a missing persons report yet. if they do make a missing persons report it's a complete investigation about where that person is until we locate them. >> this brings another question. if they don't make that report, but you feel maybe something is going on here, can you guys initiate -- >> yes. >> we can initiate so many different things to try and locate that person. there may not be a report but the hair on the back of the neck of an officer might say something is not right about this. i want to take some additional actions and discuss it with the sergeant and take actions based on that. that's why we have the ability to enter a premise and do things

that a reasonable person would make whether or not someone makes the missing person report or not. >> ok, thank you. >> you explained some things of what officers do when they look. if you recall that mr. x has not been seen and lives at this address. so you go to the address and look and you mention if mail was piled up or newspapers. you talk to the neighbors to see if they see him. that's part of the initial investigation. so if you saw a mail stacked up on the front door and neighbors say we haven't seen them and they're generally always here, those are things they general follow-up on, even the young officers, i would imagine. >> which would expect the officers in an incident like that to look at the totality of the circumstances in front of them and make a reasonable decision based on that. so yes, you are correct. >> having seen this actually not to long ago, where they put the young officer up on a ladder to look into windows to see if the elder person was fine, they did a lot of that. i saw it in action. it was pretty thorough,

actually. >> for exogen circumstances, the person over the age of 75, was that their reason? >> that's what state law is at this time. >> state law, ok, thank you. >> i have one brief question. you mentioned you won't do a report unless you have face-to-face. what if someone moves to another state. is there a way to have officers in another state confirm that they have done the check and report back? >> yes, that's exactly what we ask our officers to do. we can rely on other law enforcement agencies. we'll ask them to go out. we have someone who is reporting themselves found, this is where they are. can we have an officer respond out and determine the identity of that person. if they confirm it, they will take them out. >> anything further? >> thank you, very much. we greetly appreciate it. >> please call the next line

item. >> item 3b, report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. >> how are you? >> fine, thank you. >> good evening. vice president mazzucco. deputy director henderson is attending the national association of annual draining. it's a national organization that is dedicated to the oversight of law enforcement. it's an organization comprised of civilian oversight agencies as well as law enforcement. director henderson and other d.p.a. staff are attending this week-long training conference. it's entitled sustaining reform and advancing justice. any recent d.p.a. activities on saturday, d.p.a. investigator and myself joined the bar association in san francisco public defender event outreach event at john lee recreation center. and i wanted to mention that senior investigator carlos

villarreal who is in the fourth aisle closest to the door he is here if anyone needs information about the department of house accountability or how to file a complaint. that concludes my report. >> any questions for the acting director. >> it's only brief because he is not here. [laughter] >> perfect, thank you. call the next line item. >> 3c, commission reports. commission president reports, commissioner reports. >> i have nothing to report. i want to note that we have one of our police chap lins in the audience tonight. for members of the public, we have a group of police chaplins who are incredible. you may please come forward. i don't ordinarily do this. you've been very helpful. introduce yourself. >> i'm chaplin meghan roar. >> meghan is incredible. she was with us when one of our officers was seriously injured. we have many different faiths.

seeing you here tonight was important. again, it's part of a group that assists the police officers, not only in times of need but they council our officers when they go through traumatic events. they're always here in the hospital when our officers are injured. it's something for the public to see. we have a rabbi, we have catholic priests, we have everybody. we have the whole gamut. i want to thank you for your service. you've been very great. that one particular officer. good to see you here tonight and i appreciate you being here. >> hope to never see you at the hospital again. >> i'm with you. >> anything else you would like to report? >> yes. >> colleagues, this is a very busy weekend. i got the opportunity on saturday the 29th to attend the police officer 50 year anniversary gala event alongside commissioner taylor and i spoke to commissioner hirsch. it was well attended. former mayor willie brown was in

attendance. i want to say congratulations and congratulations to director henderson who was the master of ceremony and did a good job. also i wanted to say, a lot of dignitaries were in attendance and a lot of former officers for justice, presidents were in attendance and one of our former commissioners, suzie locktis and it was well attend and a great event. the food was amazing. congratulations to the police officers for justice for 50 years of service and their club. also, on sunday, september 30th, i got the opportunity to attend the first annual block party. it was in attendance with the community engagement division. the purpose of the even was to meet and greet with community and connect the officers to the merchants and residents in the area. so it was after the china town night out but in a much smaller version. this is a new annual community event that is designed to promote neighborhood camaraderie and strengthen the relationship between police and communities

to make you're neighborhoods a safer place to live. it was free for folks in the community. there were arts and crafts, games, music, food, rock climbing. like i said, some are the partners was sf safe, rec and park was there, the sheriff's department, the san francisco community empowerment network and the port alf family connections. just wanted to say great job to commander lazar, deric brown and his new role, who is here in the audience. it was an over all great weekend. >> thank you, very much. we do a lot of events. it's fun. it's the best part of the commission. you get out to different areas in the community that you wouldn't ordinarily go to. it's great. it's great to know the city that i was born and raised in but for all of us it's a great event. take advantage of all of it. any further reports?

>> you are still up there. >> thank you. i just wanted to announce that this sunday is the 150th annual italian heritage parade in north beach, which is my home district. if you haven't been, it's a -- it's fabulous. it's like a small-town parade in north beach. it's not like anything else you see in san francisco. you get to see sort of the older generation kind of moving into the younger generations that have groner up in north beach. it's a really important part of the community in my direct. i attend every year and i go with my son now. i'll be parked out in front of tony knicks on stockton. this year, it's very exciting. >> i'm cutting him off now.

>> there's a celebrity grand marshall vice president thomas mazzucco, tippy as we know him. he will be dress and appropriate parade. so come and see vice president mazzucco on his float. >> it's quite an honor to represent the community as the civic grand marshall. i've been attending that parade since i was a little boy. it's been a big part of our family. i was shocked i thought they were joking when they called and said would be the civic grand marshall. i said -- anyway, i'll be there. [laughter] >> it's fun to embarrass you. >> thank you. >> anything further? >> please call the next line item. >> this is y3d, commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future

commission meetings action. >> anything for future items? commissioner dejoe us. >> some community members have brought to my attention that there say big rise in criminalization of the homelessness since the creation of the hsoc. i'm wondering if we can get a status report or some type of report to see if this is true or not and what we're doing about it. it would be good if we can do it in the month of october. >> perfect. we'll put that on calender. i read the article and there's interest in that, yeah. >> anything further? i just want to add that what we're going to do, at some point, now that we have a full compliment of commissioners, we have to sign out some of the committees for our new commissioners. in terms of both the cops d.o.j.

recommendations to force hiring and retention and bias. i do want to spend time with the new commissioners and see what you are interested in. we try to stack the committees with commissioners never more than a quorum. we're pretty open for you to join them. take a look at that and get an idea what you want to be involved in. that's part of the job that the public doesn't see. so that's what i want to add. >> sergeant killshaw. >> our next meeting will be here october 10th at city hall. room 400 and that will begin at 5:30, as usual. and then, this is posted on the commissioner website but the community meetings will begin again and that will -- the first one for 2018 will take place on october 17th out in the taraville district and those community meetings will begin at 6:00 p.m.

that will be at saint ignasious high school and it's already up on our website. >> any public comments? >> i would just say, if we do the item for the criminalization for the homeless, city hall would be a better location. it's easier to get here. >> ok. >> that's the community. >> october 17th. >> sorry. >> any public comment regarding line items 3a-d. >> hi there, it's good to meet you again. we talk about property crime. this is unfair that we have cops doing all this because in one aspect, it's a subsidy for people with property so if you got a lot of property, you are getting a lot more free services

from sfpd that everybody is supporting. we heard briefly about hsoc. i was here september 5th, i talked about the martin v city of boys boise. i saw the city attorney jotting something down at the time. hopefully that will get examined then in a week's time. lastly, it's really difficult for me to hear you can't define discussion. i mean really. you will bring that potter stewart stuff in here. lastly, i'm also pleased that commissioner taylor is here. what i'm hearing is we are fortuitous, otherwise if things had gone differently in election she might be a u.s. attorney right now. pretty good.

any further public comments. hearing none, public comment is closed. call the next line item. >> item 5 discussion and possible action to approve issuance of department bulletin 18-171. department general order 3.01 modifying department general order 5.01 use of force. department bulletin 18-171 updates the procedures to send in a use of force supervisory action. >> good evening. >> once again, perpetual standards housing a written directive unit. any time a bulletin or general order is authorized or amended or changed we bring it before the commission. in this particular case, department involves 18-171 does touch from general order 5.01 and amended in a procedure and so we'll have sergeant stacey youngblood, the subject matter expert in this particular author who will explain the procedure change. >> thank you.

>> sergeant youngblood. >> good evening. >> president mazzucco, commissioners and chief scott. so this is kind of divided into two different break-ups here. this does amend the d.g.o. it does not change the use of force policy. we are changing basically the routing of how the completeddous of force gets back to where they need to go. under our current procedures, the supervisor responds out to the incident where use of force has taken place, they fill out the use of force evaluations and they come back to the station

and then that evaluation is sent to the commanding officer of risk management, right now it's the original copy is sent back to risk management. a copy is sent to the training division. the commanding officer there. and then they also send another copy to that officer's bureau deputy chief. our proposed procedures are tox instead of the routing of all of these different forms mailed to here, sent to these different people, we are just trying to say that we would like them e-mailed. instead of having all these different hard copies going everywhere, we've created three e-mail addresses for the three for the bureau deputy chief and the data collection for r.m.o. as well as for the academy. what we have amended here is stating that the commanding officers or their designated is responsible for sang the scannie end of watch and e-mailing it to risk management office, the

academy and the burro bureau dey chief. the use of force log is still in use. where the commanding officer currently is to sign the use of force log and send it along with a copy of the incident report to the training division, r.m.o. and to the bureau's deputy chief. we are proposing that the commanding officers sign the use of force log, scan the log, and the e-mail it along with a copy of the incident report too much r.m.o. academy in the bureau deputy chief. what that is doing is streamlining the procedure so that we are actually getting it on time, we're getting e-mail and it's easier to receive. we're not waiting for the inner department e-mail to come here. it's less paper and it's less burden on on the station. it's faster delivery and it's also's year for us and the stations to track when it's being e-mailed to us. second part, which doesn't amend the d.g.o. it's just items that

were added to the supervisor use of force evaluation forms. you should have a copy of it. they're all highlighted. everybody that's been changed on there. so first we have -- on the heading, you have an item that says cad advised armed. it wasn't on there before. this is saying that the officer was advised that the subject may have been armed prior to them arriving on scene or making contact with the subject. second is what type of weapon did cad advise that they were holding? second under the subject is sf resident. this was added because a lot of times when we -- our use of force are based on the population of san francisco but not, as you know, the city grows exponentially when we have tourists come here. we wanted to kind of show that we can have the use of force

reflect not just our community but all the people coming into the city where force is being used on people. number two, the subject has been changed to gender. we have added u for unknown and the x for non binary. u for unknown is in a demo incident where an officer may have struck someone with their baton and the person flees into the crowd and they never got to see who that person was, what gender they were, now we have the unknown for that purpose. unrelated complaint of pain. this was originally out in january of 2017. we've learned a lot from all those coming in on what we needed to put into this. this was one that was needed. we had a lot of people who had pain or they were injured but it wasn't necessarily from the use of force that the officer used. maybe they had a broken arm prior. they were in a cast. they have a complaint of pain. they wanted to go to the

hospital. so all the forms were writing complaint of pain but not use of force involved with it. that's why this was in here. we've added admitted. so if the subject was at midded to the hospital after medical treatment. we have the levels of resistance are being sequenced now. so, if a subject, at first is coming in they might be an active resister and they might be assaulted before being compliant. with the supervisors doing is they are sequencing those, 1, 2, 3, which was first and second and third. under officer, again, we do have admitted as well. we have a box for verbal commands issued before force was used. we have verbal warnings issued before a firearm impact weapon or a chemical agent was used. this is specifically to d.g.o.

5.1 that states a member shall give of a warning prior to using a firearm impact weapon. and again, we will specify the sequence of the force used by the officer as well. what did the officer do when he came across the subject? did he use his baton and transition to point of a firearm and he went into physical restraint. we're sequencing that. determination pending an investigation. this wasn't on the original form. basically it just said was the use of force in policy yes or no. we pigeon holed the supervisor into choosing yes or no. a lot of times, such as o.i.s., the determination of whether that is in policy isn't done there by that supervisor. it's sent to the o.i.s. team who does an investigation and that is later determined. they would check the determination pending investigation to show that they're not saying no, he is not in policy, yes is in policy and

it will be determined at a later period of time. under preliminary findings, we have a supervisor completing and a second reviewing supervisor. the reviewing supervisor now it's time for them to sign off for the day. what they can do is they can update the reviewing supervisor on what they've done on that form. they filled it out up to this point. they're going to go home and they're going to relief that supervisor to continue the evaluation. they're going to read off the report. they're going to view the body-worn camera and they're going finish up sending these forms though where they need to be sent. we've added review body-worn camera. which states that we shall

review body worn camera in all cases that result in serious bodily injury. other video cale able. available. say it happened in front of molly stones and molly stones has camera out font. if readily available would try to get that video to view the video. if it's not readily available they would say that video is available and they were unable to see it at that point in time. again, we have the e-mail address. >> thank you very much for making these additions. commissioner hirsch. >> i can see tension arising around the complaint of pain. whether it's related or unrelated. i can imagine someone saying it's related and an officer saying it's unrelated. how is that determination made? >> i'm sorry? >> how does the officer -- who makes the determination whether it's related pain or unrelated

pain to the force used? >> that's the supervisors' responsible. what they're on the scene and asking the subject says -- it's basically based on what the subject says. >> all right. it's not an independent determination by a supervisor or an officer that ignores what the subject says? >> no. if the subject says my wrist hurts, he might say because of the handcuffing. that is fine. we also have people that say this is from when i fell on the curb yesterday. it's based on what we're told at the time. it's not researched to verify they're telling the truth. >> it's not an independent vallation made by the officer? >> no. >> thank you. >> mr. hamasaki. >> regarding, sort of the bottom of the first page where there's

a series of check boxes for use of force by the officer, by the subject and was it within policy. was there any consideration -- and maybe this exists somewhere independent of this evaluation for putting a narrative sequence of the use of force, meaning a description as opposed to one, two, three, four, although obviously it's helpful. is there a narrative that's attached to this in some way? how is that -- how do we learn more from these incidents rather than what's on this page? >> that would be from the incident report. >> ok. >> how is that -- i guess, how does that track what the use of force report so that when we're doing these evaluations of whether or not we're using too much force, we're using force way below minimums. >> this evaluation is sent to the academy, along with a copy of the incident report.

it's the academy that reviews the evaluation and the incident report for any type of anomalies that they see where we need for training or along those lines. >> that was my second question. any each of these use of force evaluations, they're actually sent for review so even where a situation is in policy but there's thing we can learn from it, how o t to do it better ande less force, that's reviewed by the academy and they do sort of a lessons learned out of the review process? >> correct. >> ok. thank you. >> nothing further. >> commissioner taylor. >> i just have a question about the difference between the complaint of pain and injured. if it's coming from the person who has the pain or the injury, the injured category is asking spin to bsomeone to be a doctor.

>> the complaint of pain is jus. i'm telling you to the officer. i have pain in my arm where i was struck. if i have an injury, an injury would be like the officer can view it. there's a bruce there, there's a red mark there of some sort where the officer is able to see the injury. >> the protection is that's the officer's assessment but the complaint of pain is coming from the person? >> it's coming from the person. >> yes. >> anything further? >> thank you, very much, sergeant. >> any public comments regarding this line item? >> welcome back. >> hi, there, welcome back. >> hi, there. >> it seems to have some good ideas perhaps. however, this check mark box about what an injury is, yes, i have the same concerns there.

furthermore, it goes back to say execution or you can have something on a piece of paper, that doesn't mean it's reality. it's like hey, we had a big debt crisis -- [ please tant b stand by ]

>> if a person says they have an injury and there are orders that go along with it. even if pain lasts longer than it should, if you could not see any type of mark or anything, if the pain isn't transient and somebody says 20 minutes later when they are in the back of the car, my arm is still hurting, that his complaint of pain. we would have them checked out by an ambulance crew. there are mandates when we do take people to the hospital for an evaluation versus an assessment. so if you were pepper sprayed, will definitely see the

ambulance. prior, for instance when we had the carotid, that was automatic to the hospital regardless if the person was functioning. there are mandates. and further bulletins. everyone is at least assessed when that complaint of pain comes in. >> thank you. >> great. do i have a motion to accept the department bulletin regarding the form of the streamlined process we ? >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? >> aye. it is unanimous. >> item six is general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commission regarding items that did not appear in tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission. the speaker should address the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or d.b.a. personnel. under police commission rules of order, neither police nor d.b.a.

personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions provided by the public but may provide a brief response. individual personnel should refrain from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers during public comment. please limit your comments to two minutes. >> thank you. please, come forward. >> it even, commissioners. my name is mark and i am a homeowner and business owner in the historic dogpatch neighbourhood and a board member of the friends of dogpatch hub, a group of neighbours working to develop a community centre in dogpatch. once a sleepy postindustrial neighbourhood, but now the fastest growing residential neighbourhood in san francisco. we believe the long abandoned police station as an ideal location for that community centre and i'm here with some of my colleagues to solicit your supports. the police station is located