devices because they could interfere with the equipment in the room. [pledge of allegiance] >> commissioner taylor, i would like to call role. >> yes. [roll call] >> you have a quorum. also present is chief scott chief scott from the san francisco police department and paul henderson from the

department of police accountability. >> please call the first item. >> line item one, presentation of certificate of asset appreciation, action. mr. adam walker in his assistance in the rest of a potential kidnapping suspect -- assistance in the arrest of a potential kidnapping suspect. >> okay. , members of the police commission, chief, i would like to thank you for taking this opportunity to recognize somebody in our community that did in extraordinary event and an extra ignored -- extraordinary situation. on april 12th of 2019, at 1224 -- at 12:24 a.m., police were dispatched to a call of the person who attempted to kidnap a small child. once we got on scene, we did quickly determine that the suspect was detained by mr. walker here, and then

backing it up, it was a mother, and she was walking her 2 -year-old child on castro and 17th street. she had another newborn baby on her chest when the suspect grabbed her child and walked away. this happened directly in front of mr. walker as he was walking with his own child and his wife. this person, the suspect quickly ran away, and without any hesitation, mr. walker gave chase, having to leave his wife and child behind. he chased the suspect for two blocks and he caught him. he did not use any force in doing so. he held him until police arrived he showed a lot of under pressure -- he showed a lot of

calmness under pressure. i would like to say that he acted very indicative of our community and what we are about as people of san francisco. i am really grateful that he is given this opportunity to receive an award from the commission. >> thank you. i want to personally say thank you. when i read about it, i was shocked and really thankful that there are people like you in our community. i shudder to think what could have happened if you weren't there behaving the way that you did. you are a real hero and a real credit to san francisco, so thank you. >> i would like to say, too, i saw the videos when this first happened. and i said to myself, that is really important that the people in this town care enough about helping somebody with their child. i want to thank you as a native san franciscan, and someone who has raised his children in this

great city. people like you make this a great place to live. thank you. >> if i could chime in, the fact that you were paying attention and that you came to the mother 's aid is so admirable. i really do thank you, and i think most of the citizens of sent -- of san francisco thank you for your bravery. >> on behalf of the men and women of the san francisco police department, i would like to give you this certificate of appreciation. it reads, and deep is -- deepest gratitude for performance and outstanding good bravery and service to others on great personal risk on april 12th, 2019. such an example of bravery is worthy of the highest esteem by the san francisco police department. thank you so much. [applause]

>> also that he brought his family with him. his wife is here. >> welcome. >> he just told me he will be completing his residency here, moving out to colorado where he will be a dentist. they are from the alaska area. thank you, again, for everything >> thank you so much. is there anything you would like to say? >> thank you for the recognition it means a lot. acting as i hope any father would, any bystander that is in that situation. if it was my own child, and i was not there, i would hope somebody would do the same thing there are people i have gotten to know in san francisco, anyone knows in my shoes, they would do the same thing. >> i am said that you are leaving, but you are a real credit to your city and to your

family and to all of us. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> please call the next line item. >> line item two, adoption of minutes -- sorry, next we have public comment. >> is there any public comment? yes. [laughter] >> hearing none, next line item. >> line item two, adoption of the minutes, action, for the meeting of may firth -- may 1st , eighth, and of 2019. >> do i have a motion? >> yes. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> public comment. >> is there public comment on the adoption of the minutes from last meeting? i see no hands.

can we vote? all in favor? >> aye. >> all opposed? hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. >> next item. >> line item three, reports to report to the commission, discussion. thirty-eight, chief's report, provide an overview of the senses of peering in san francisco. the chief's report will be limited to a to a brief description of significant incidents. they will be limited to calendar whether the chief wants to limit any of the issues described. this will include a brief overview of any unplanned events or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. the commission discussion on unplanned events and activities, the chief describes a be limited to determine whether to calendar for a future meeting. update on m.o.u. between sfpd

and the district attorney's office, presentation of the third and fourth quarter 2018 in the first quarter 2019 findings and recommendations, and investigative summaries, and presentation of the first quarter 2019 early intervention system, the e.i.s. report. >> chief? >> thank you, vice president taylor. i will start my presentation with the weekly update crime trends update, and then i will cover the rest of the items. in terms of overall port one crime, we are down 13% violent crime. we're down 15%, homicide, we are at a zero% change from this time last year, and we are 26% down in gun violence. property crime, we are 12% below where we were this time last year. that includes a 15% drop in auto

break-ins from this time last year. we had also a 16% decrease in burglaries, and an overall 13% decline in larceny and theft. we are trending really good. we started off the year busy with homicides, we are up slightly from this time last year in gun -related homicides, we are at nine, as opposed to six last year. we definitely want to get a handle on that. gun violence is down 26% overall that is good news. as i stated here to date, we are at 17 compared to 17 last year. we had no homicides this following week. we did have two notable homicide arrests this past week. we had an arrest in a 2016 case that occurred on the 400 block of sixth street. we made an arrest on that case, and we made an arrest on a 2019 case that happened on may 15th

, 2019 in the 800 block of turk street. those cases have been filed by the district attorney's office. we are really happy with the results there. we had a couple of newsworthy incidents that happened over the past week, led by an aggravated assault with a vehicle. it happened in the tenderloin on may 29th at 1:56 p.m. the highlights of this case, the tenderloin officers in a marked patrol vehicle observed a driver of a red key out run a red light they requested a run on the license plate, and while they followed the vehicle to await results. dispatch returned that the plate , that the vehicle was stolen, and the unit, additional units were requested as the vehicle approached midblock. it pulled from the north side of

80th street into traffic, blocking the flow -- traffic was blocking the kia's path. they activated their emergency red lights, attempted to stop the driver, and the driver continued forward, striking a victim, pinning the victim against scaffolding and street signs. the driver continued to drive, they collided with several vehicles, entering several -- injuring several more drivers. the end result was the officers were able to resolve this issue without any serious use of force , in the driver was taken into custody. a lot of this was captured on video. it got a lot of attention from the media, and i am really happy and proud of the job the officers did on this case because this could have been a much worse in terms of the people that were injured and the outcome. it was really a good job by the tenderloin officers and i'm really proud of the work that was done in that case.

there was also an aggravated assault unprovoked in the castro this one was not -- did not get a lot of media, but it is worthy of mentioning this particular case. the victim who was transgender and was standing at a bus stop when a suspect came up behind her, pushed and shoved her to the ground, and this was unprovoked. she hit her head, she was injured. the suspect was on a bicycle, and again, the disturbing part was this was a totally unprovoked attack. that suspect is still outstanding, so we are asking for the public's help if anybody saw anything, that can help us solve who did this. we definitely are looking to solve this case. it was an unprovoked attack. we don't know what the motive was. until we get the suspect in

custody, or we get any help from anybody who may have seen this. this happened on may 30th at 6:00 p.m. at castro and market. we also had a collision with major injuries at 17th and mission on june 1st at 1:50 p.m. the vehicle was travelling southbound on mission street, it accelerated at a high rate of speed into an intersection and collided with another vehicle on the motorcycle. it jumped the curb into a building. the officers arrived, and the driver of the vehicle was unconscious. the officers performed c.p.r., revived the driver, and the driver was transported to the hospital in critical condition. that incident is still under investigation as to whether, what the cause of the driver losing control of the vehicle. we don't have a conclusion on

that yet, but it did cause a significant amount of attention both in the media and there were injuries with the driver in that case. that is still under investigation, and our traffic company will determine what the cause of that, whether it is medical or some other issue that caused that collision. we kicked off our pride month this week with our pride patches in which the commission approved last month, and we have gotten a lot of good comments and good, positive feedback on our pride patches. we also now have a pride vehicle that we will display in that -- display in the pride parade. you may have seen that on the news as well. it is really hats off to pride and some of the other organizations within the department that actually made this happen, and it is definitely for a worthy cause with all the donations from --

the donations from the pride patches will be going to larkin street, but we have gotten a lot of positive feedback from the pride patches. many members, including myself, are wearing the pride patches. that was a good note. the mayor lowered the pride flag to kickoff pride month yesterday , and we were there for that as well. we got a lot of good press on that, and positive feedback from the community. we are very happy to support pride month. the giants returned to town this weekend, june 7th. they will play the dodgers. we are deployed for that, and then they will play the padres two days following the dodgers series. we will have good deployment for that. we also have lawyers in the championship series, and we are deploying, in the event that -- we are deploying in the event that clinched games happen in the next week or so, we are deploying for that and preparing for that. those are the major events for this week. i will pause there for any

questions before i go to the next item. >> i would say feel free to provide scores when you're giving public comments tonight for the game. just kidding. [laughter]. >> okay. the next item is an update on the m.o.u., the o.i.s. and iu with the district attorney's office with the san francisco police department. hopefully the commission, members of the commission have had a chance to read it. we'd sent everybody a copy after the last meeting when this came up. basically, this is three years in the works. a lot of work what -- went into this. meeting and conferring had to occur with the department and with the police officers association, and the end result is, after three years, we have an m.o.u. signed where the district attorney's office will be the investigative agency for the criminal investigation on any officer involved shooting in custody to have use of force resulting in serious bodily

injury. internally, we had to make some adjustments in order to make this happen, and the bulletin that will be presented to the commission tonight is part of those changes that we needed to make internally to make this happen, but overall, it was a very long process, and we believe we have a fair agreement that will help the independence of the criminal portion of the office involved shooting investigation. if there's any questions from the commission, i would be happy to answer. >> commission, someone will be presenting on the changes. >> the bulletin, yes. that is later in the agenda. item number 4. investigative services detail. >> so i actually got my copy from the d.a. your copy didn't come until two

years ago. i did get a copy from the district attorney who was kind enough to do this. there's a lot of questions that i have, and especially -- i understand the situation, this is not a perfect situation. the obama report -- the obama 21 st century report talked about having an independent investigation, so i understand the district attorney set this up to have some type of because i independence, because, you know, the district attorney works too closely with the department. i understand this is not the best set up, but it is a start. i guess i had some questions on ... i am having a hard time

reading that note there. my understanding, when it comes to the duties, at the scene, the way i read is is the district attorney investigator will take the lead. is that your understanding as well? >> that is correct. >> when i talk about, at the scene, when it talks about the san francisco district attorney responsibilities starts with checking the crime scene, read all the interviews, i guess i was concerned because i don't know if the fire department does this. many times it is just a walk-through with the police officer if he is able to do that as to what happened. is the d.a. going to be there all the way through it, or only when it starts with interviews? >> the d.a. is there all the way through. with that the notification system we have in place, everybody is notified when the incident occurs, and the d.a.'s

personnel show up, our personal shows up, and the first thing that happens is there was a briefing to get everybody up to speed on what we have. from there, from that point forward, the d.a.'s office is the lead on the criminal investigation, so basically the interviews, anything that is done from that point forward, they lead. >> it says one s.f. bd notifies the on-call d.a. investigator, it doesn't say when. i mean, i assume it is immediately. >> it is immediately. >> it would be nice if it said that. it also says the d.a. will record their observations. i was wondering how that would occur. will the district attorney have a body worn camera? >> not that i know of, but that is their internal process in terms of how they record observations, but to go back to the notification, that was part of the d.o.j. recommendations,

and we have been -- for over two years now. the notification process has been rectified where everybody gets notified at the onset, so we all get called at the same time, and there is a call that happens, and then everybody responds, and it goes from there i don't know how the district attorney is going to test his staff with recording their observations, but it is not through our body worn camera. >> so that is just as they are going to record. okay. on the next page, we're talking about the statements of the officers, including public safety statements. will the district attorney be present for the initial public safety stand -- statements? >> typically no, because those statements are done right away, so the purpose of the public safety statement is to make sure there's not any collateral victims or, you know, we know which direction the shots are fired, and how many shots are fired. typically that happens right after the incident and before

the district attorney gets there , so they will not, in a typical situation be part of that process. if the department -- it is the department's responsibility to take the statement. >> when they do the initial public safety statement, is that a recorded statement? how is that done? >> it can be recorded, but typically, when the sergeants, or whoever does the public safety statement, it can be recorded on body camera. >> what talked about the department of police accountability, there is a throwaway paragraph that they have a duty to investigate. i am just wondering why -- i am i'm wondering how they fit into this. >> where are you, commissioner. >> department of police accountability. it is a paragraph singh we acknowledge they have the right to investigate -- it is a

paragraph saying we have -- we acknowledge that they have the right to investigate. i don't know how they would fit into this when they are on the scene, like if it is something we can ask the department of accountability how it works. i am assuming you have to cooperate with them as part of your department. >> yes, one of the things we wanted to get in here is the acknowledgement that the department of police accountability is responsible for doing their own investigations. director henderson has worked out his own m.o.u. with the d.a. 's office as well, but we just want to the language in there so there's the acknowledgement that they also have a duty, and this has to be coordinated, that's why it's in there. it does not spell out how -- what their duties are, but we wanted to make sure this language acknowledges they are conducting an investigation in the m.o.u. >> you guys have your own notification period, right? >> that is exactly correct.

because it is independent, we have a whole separate thing, but we wanted to make sure that there is a placeholder so there is an understanding amongst all the parties so that when we show up and they show up concurrently doing the same thing with the police department, all parties no who is supposed to be in the room. >> can you provide the m.o.u. at the next commission meeting? >> sure. >> i appreciate it. >> it was one of the requests from the commission for me when i first took the position, so it was one of the very thirst -- first thing is that i did. i wanted to flush this out specifically for this purpose, both for us to have independent access to information so it wasn't a process of, regardless of who was taking lead, they weren't just getting summation of information that we were

getting concurrent information independently. i will certainly send that along >> okay. i'm sorry, there's no page numbers on here, so it is under interviews with sfpd officers. i was looking at g. -- not g., f., the officers have the right -- right to consult with representatives and have representatives present for a criminal investigation interviews. representatives are usually lawyers or union officials and supporters are usually spouses, coworkers, friends, or clergy persons. i found that one of the best practices, they do talk about giving support to officers who are involved in shootings, including friends and coworkers, but they also say that the best practice, the agency shall direct the officers not to direct any aspect -- discuss any aspect of the shooting with fellow officers, the.

council, coworkers, friends, and the family. it doesn't say anything about that. i am just confused -- not confused, but wondering if that is the best practice and why we didn't have it in there. that was one of the questions. >> officers, in this situation, they are monitored by supervisors for that purpose, commissioner. this m.o.u. is in agreement between the district attorney's office and the police department in terms of protocols for these situations. but as a matter of practice, that does oh, her when an officer involved shooting happens, or an incident that would fit this criteria. the officers are monitored by supervisors to make sure they are not having conversations about the incident. it is not in the m.o.u., but that is the standard protocol. >> okay. , because that is something --

and then, the only thing was the time limit. i was looking on the internet at other departments, and they pretty much pledged to have their investigations done anywhere from 90 days, to three months, 24 months, and some of them say, they could go up to a year that is just unreasonable. here you have six months to do a report, and if you want an extension, you can do longer than six months. i think for transparency -- transparency, for the public, those are long periods to put in , and what we were trying to do is shorten it. i think today we have an officer on the discharge review board from three years ago, which is just a way too long for an investigation, whether it be policy, vernon street of investigation. the district attorney investigation goes very long, and we don't have any control over that. i am just wondering why it shows six months, i understand sometimes they are complicated,

but sometimes they are not that complicated. >> when it was all said and done , it was felt by everybody that that six months was reasonable and realistic. our track record has been much longer than that, and we know that that has to be shortened. we, the police department, don't have much control over, you know , what the district attorney 's investigators do with the investigation. that is really their timeline in terms of the investigation subject to this m.o.u., but that was discussed and negotiated, and it was felt by all parties that that was a fair timeline, at least for these types of investigations. these are complex investigations , for the most part. >> i think we short shorten that it says shall endeavour within six months, it doesn't even say it should be done in six months.

when it goes to public trust, people are waiting to see if there is a resolution. that is a long time. the last thing i have, i noticed you talk about, i guess the last page, where it talked about the balancing of what the district attorney's duties are in terms of looking at the evidence, and the corpus collect i, was there a criminal act or a crime here. i am concerned that there is law that is pending in front of the state legislature that would change, potentially could change how this is looked at, and it says this will be in full force. i'm just wondering, can you go in and amend it in terms of the law? >> yes, it can be amended, you can be cancelled by any party. in terms of the m.o.u., but of course, as the law changes, we have to change based on law. that can be done as well.

>> of course, you will get to this in a moment, but i want to put it out there that whoever will bring the next presentation , what i'm looking at the department bulletin where these other dg owes will be affected, i couldn't find a d.g.o. -- i couldn't find the d.g.o. anywhere on our website. it wasn't attached, so in some of these, i am guessing -- i guess we will have a presentation how they will be affected, but it would be good for us to have a copy of it so we can see how it will be affected. >> let's wait until we get to that bulletin. they will give notice when they come up here. >> are you finished? >> i think i am. thank you. >> thank you. a lot of the questions i had, you covered. my question is, chief, on page 1 , when it says the department will notify from s.f. p.d. personnel, who is that person? is that a d.a. investigator, is

that an attorney, who is it? it doesn't identify who they are >> it is the person in charge of iib who is on that notification callout list, if you will, so that is an attorney, actually. >> so the i.i.b. department will be responding? >> they will respond. whoever is in charge of them, which is an attorney, it is a district attorney. the notification goes out to that person, it goes out to others as well, but that person is certainly notified. >> is that the same department -- wasn't there funding reduced more then a year ago? was in their budget slashed than -- in half? >> i'm not sure what there funding is. they are still a functional unit i'm not sure how they are funded moving forward, but they are still a functional unit. they do still have that responsibility. >> okay.

these incidents, are they going to take priority with respect to how they are investigated or handled, i am assuming by the department, and by the district attorney's office. is that right? >> in terms of the officer involved shootings, or incidents that fall under this m.o.u.? >> yes, altar call -- all three categories. >> my understanding is this is one of their primary duties, these cases. >> they are high-priority, and there are people already assigned to this task, or we know these are important incidents that need to be investigated properly. why is there a six-month delay? is that just the marker and we are hopefully shooting for something sooner than six months >> we would, ideally, we would want these cases investigated as quickly as we can do it, and do it thoroughly. some of these cases can be done

in six months, and quite frankly , there are some that are more complicated. these cases take time, they are complex cases, they use -- usually his these cases take six months. six months, i believe this is a fair amount of time, it is not an extended amount of time, but it is a fair amount of time for a case like an officer involved shooting. many times, there is evidence that has to be sent out to labs, and that takes time. we just wanted to have a reasonable and realistic amount of time, and that is why six months was agreed upon. this is the district attorney that will lead on these investigations, so this portion of the investigation is up to the district attorney's office and whether they will meet that six months or not. >> my question is, with respect

to the interviews of the sfpd officers, in that section, the steps in terms of how and when officers are to be interviewed are spelled out pretty thoroughly, and one of the first thing this is they are sequestered so there is no communication between them and other officers or other individuals that would have or give a statement on the incident that is right, correct? >> that is correct. >> the purpose of that is to maintain the integrity of the statement or what is the officer , or person observed. >> correct. >> they do have the right to speak with representatives in terms of other officers. you are correct. >> when these interviews are being conducted, is that the d.a.'s office and the police department and d.p.a. that will be present while these interviews are happening, or who is in the room? >> the d.a.'s office, we believe , the police department, some of these cases have a lateral crimes.

a robbery occurs, and that results in an officer involved shooting, there is a robbery that has to be investigated, and so san francisco police department will still be responsible for that portion of the investigation, so there is an assisted t4 those investigators to interview witnesses and so -- so there is an sss -- a necessity for those investigators to interview witnesses. and witnesses and d.p.a. have their role. it has to be coordinated carefully and thoughtfully, and that is why that lead agency really will be part of that discussion about who should be in the room and who shouldn't in terms of an interview, but every case is different, and it depends on the crime. if there is another crime involved, there is a different set of issues that we need to contend with.

these cases can be very complex and complicated in terms of what it might lead to in terms of interviewing different witnesses for different reasons. the coordination is what is important. this m.o.u., they have the district attorney as the lead on these investigations, they are calling the shots on some of this. >> those are all the questions i have for now. >> thank you very much, chief. the m.o.u., essentially just changes who is taking the lead. i was on the officer involved shooting team, and there is no change about the process, the crime scene, other then the fact that the d.a.'s office will take the lead. having responded to several of these, it is organized chaos, but it is organized. when i was assistant d.a., you are notified, as was the d.a.

investigator the same time the command staff was notified, and you are immediately taken to the scene. at the time it was the occ, not the d.p.a. it is a crime scene. they coordinate who has access to it, who has availability to the officers, and every time i have been involved, the officers are taken to the station and sequestered. there is not a lot of change and that in that in that regard. i think the commissioners, you know, it would be a great experience. hopefully we don't have another one, but if there is one for the commissioners to actually see how it works, and i mean, mr. henderson is shaking his head. we keep it very clean and nobody is allowed near the crime scene, no one is allowed near the officers. it is really well done. the difference is the d.a. takes the lead. the reality at the time, it does take time. we had some of these cases with the das -- with the d.a.'s office before they would close their case, and the d.a. was the

chief at the time, and he said that was unacceptable. he complained, and now they have gotten much better. it is still not as good. we had an officer involved shooting involving an officer at the airport, and san mateo county closed at the airport in six weeks. we were impressed by that. it was a complex case. i know there is a dedicated unit to do this, but they are complex , and even more complex by video, video on the street, video of the officers. it doesn't take a lot of time. my perspective is you want to do it right, six months seems very reasonable to me, these cases are complex. a lot of witnesses, a lot of people being witnessed -- being watched. i'm glad we have this m.o.u. we met with people, some of the best protocol would be the attorney general's office, not the d.a.'s office because there are still relationships, but this is the next best thing, and there are professionals in the d.a.'s office are used to doing this.

i think the chief for doing it. >> to add to that, part of the problem with these investigations, and i have done a lot of investigations as a prosecutor, not only are you collecting forensic evidence, but you have to wait for the results, which is not a quick process, so you have forensic evidence, you have crime scene reconstruction, these things aren't your typical, very small case that doesn't require time and will work especially in these cases. we want to make sure they are done absolutely right and correctly. that means not short circuiting, not cutting corners, not being lazy. >> thank you for that. i have not done the investigation, however, i have done numerous m.o.u. seeing a memorandum of understanding holds individuals accountable, that is what the document says. the question that i had was just

towards the end of the document. it says the duration of this m.o.u. is for two years. >> that is correct. >> how long have we been working on this m.o.u.? >> since 2016. >> when was the last time we had an m.o.u. put in place? >> i think it was 2009 or 2010. it was nearly ten years ago. >> okay. i think it is really imperative we have a document that is put in place to hold people accountable. >> sure. >> thank you. just two follow-up things really quickly. i definite he have a kern just a concern that i.i.b. is in charge of investigating officers who violate the law. i think it puts them in a peculiar position because not only are they warranted with a task of doing that, but they also have to rely on police officers for this type of investigation in order to investigate police officers, so i think it puts them in a very

peculiar position, and then the other question i had was, was there any training on this m.o.u. with the police department or the d.a.'s office or -- i know there was a section about training and stuff, but i mean, is the police department being trained on this m.o.u. and how the investigation should go forward? >> that has occurred already, and will continue to occur with joint training between the district attorney's office and the police department. that has already started. >> that would have been nice to let us know so we can go and observe and, you know, some of these questions could probably have been answered there, you know, and flushed out a little more. >> i certainly knew about that, i don't think that is a secret. >> i'm not sure we all knew about it. >> long before i was leadership. >> moving forward, we can notify the commission when future

trainings occur. that process has already started yes, ma'am? >> i think that would be helpful for the entire commission. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. , chief, anything else? >> that is it for my portion of the report, next we have the presentation of the third and fourth quarter, 2018 findings and recommendations and o.i.s. recommendations. >> good evening. director henderson, chief scott, and members of the community. my name is greg, i and the deputy tree -- chief of the bureau. i am presenting the firearm discharge review quarterly reports. i would like to start with the purpose of the firearms discharge review board for members of the public who may not be familiar with what that

board does. it is a policy of the san francisco police department to review every incident in which a firearm is discharged, whether or not such discharge will result in injury or death. the firearm's discharge review board shall review every discharge of a firearm and the purpose of the review is to ensure that the department is continually reviewing its training policy and procedures in light of the circumstances that led to the firearms discharges by members, and to determine if the discharge was in policy. there was not a third quarter 2018 discharge review board meeting. there were no cases to be presented, however, the fourth quarter 2018 discharge was convened on august 8th of 2018 where they reviewed four cases.

on page 4 of the presentation, the officer involved shooting occurred november 11th, 2015, approximately 4:15 p.m. in the afternoon on the 3,000 block of cesar chavez street. officers responded to a construction sight mac of cesar chavez street. workers reported a man with two guns had made its way to the sixth floor of the site. upon the officer's revived -- of arrival, they snack up to get an eye on the suspect. they found the suspect holding a long gun. they were looking at potential targets, it was armed with a long gun. they pose a deadly threat to themselves and the members of the community. three officers fired at the

suspect, fatally striking him. after a review of the case in and the analysis of the case by internal affairs, a recommendation was put forth to the firearm review board that a piece of the firearm was seen policy. chief scott has concurred with the recommendation. on page 5, and officer involved shooting, which occurred october 14th, 2016 at approximately 8:00 p.m. at 28th street. two uniformed officers were assigned and were among the officers responding to the city regarding an officer shot in the sunset district. the suspect was contained within the perimeter. the officers were on the edge of the perimeter when the suspect emerged from the nearby cover and opened fire.

the officer returned fire and mortally wounded the suspect. the investigation and recommendation to the firearm reviewed board -- review board was that the use of the firearm was in policy, and it was forwarded to chief scott and he concurred. page 6, officer involved shooting, on may 3rd, 2017, approximately 11:22 a.m., on the 900 block of market. a bystander directed officers to a disturbance on the 900 block of market. the employee attempted to flee. the suspect was in close pursuit , steel wielding his knife. and officer fired at the suspect , mortally wounding him. no one else was injured from the discharge. the internal affairs investigations conclusion in the recommendation was that the use of the firearm was in policy,

and chief scott concurred with this. and the final incident being presented is on page 7, the officer involved shooting. may 21st, 2017, at approximately 10:56 p.m., they responded to a home invasion robbery by armed suspects. officers arrived and circled the perimeter and attempted to make contact with subjects in the residents. they ran out the black -- the back door and officers ordered them to stop. the suspect fired multiple rounds at officers. one officer -- when officers returned fire, no one else was hit, and the suspects escaped from the immediate area. the internal affairs investigation was that the use of this discharge and the farm was in -- a firearm was in policy, and the chief has concurred with this recommendation. on page 8 of the summary, in

custody death reviews, there were no investigations presented the status of open officer involved shooting investigations on page 11, there are four investigations presented. there is still seven that have active criminal investigations with the sfpd for the d.a.'s office. one has an open reticle examiner 's investigation. it does still need to be concluded, and then there are additionally three o.i.s. cases that are actively being investigated. page 12 gives a summary of previous cases, and that is it for the third, apparently the fourth quarter, 2018, the firearms discharge review board. >> any questions from the commission?

>> thank you for your report. i want to remind folks that we have talked in the past, and i want to make sure we continue the conversations about expanding the scope and the focus in terms of making it broader and more inclusive, and we move it forward. thank you though for the report. i wanted to flag that. >> members of the public might not know this. director henderson and i attend these meetings, but we don't have a vote, so i think director henderson may be getting to that >> i was. >> this is a good example. the o.i.s. is four years old. the other one is three years old and the other two is two years old. and part of this community trust

is to resolve these things. in policy, out of policy, no administrative hearings, whether they will be criminally prosecuted. i know we used to wait for the d.a., and the d.a. says they are not his priority. they said they are not his priority, and he'll get to them when they can. i just don't understand why, i thought we weren't going to wait for the d.a., we are going to move into a more consistent and more -- a quicker manner. those are the ones you just had. the oldest one is four years old at the very end, you still have the summary that there are still some that are quite old. so you have four of them that are two years old. i don't understand what the holdup is. two or three years to investigate whether they are in

policy or not? >> we are moving them faster. there was quite a backlog a couple of years ago. we also had a backlog. we are down to about seven cases now. we need to move them even faster , but we are much better than we were in years prior in terms of getting these forward, and you are correct that the commission has concurred we should not wait for the d.a. on these cases, and that is what we intend to do. >> i have to say, this is not the report i was given in my packet,. >> it wasn't. it was added today. we were given the first quarter of 2019 in the packet. >> are you making the report for 2019? >> i was waiting for the fourth quarter. >> i thought you were done. i will ask questions about that one. >> okay.

>> the 2019, first quarter of 2019 discharge review board met, however, both cases, -- it was presented to the review board, but then referred back to internal affairs with decisions for policy review, and they were presented to the discharge review board, though it was referred back to the fdrb for review by the field tactics force options unit. chief scott referred that one back to for further review, those investigations had not been presented and closed yet. >> will you go on to talk about the example? >> sorry about that. >> the last one, it is still

outstanding, or have they been referred back to internal affairs? >> they referred back to the division for the policy review and further by the field tax at the academy. >> let's take this -- let me call you? >> i guess my question is, in reading the report that was provided, the first incident is from a 2016 o.i.s. that was referred back to them for clarification on the findings pertaining to the department bulletin regarding how to respond to mental health calls

within armed setback. this is an incident from 2016, and it came before the board, and the recommendation is that we turn it back. what is the status of it now? my understanding is it was presented in march of this year to the board, and it was supposed to go back for a 30 day investigation and clarification. do we have that yet? >> i don't have that. >> i'm from the internal affairs division. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. the two cases have not been presented again in front of fdrb they are still in the process. they returned, and others were returned to the academy. there are still further investigative steps that are

being done at this time and will be presented to fdrb. >> okay. isn't the third one, also wasn't that referred to i.e.d. for 30 days as well? >> that will be presented in the next one. >> when will that be? >> it should be sometime in june we don't have an exact date right now. >> you were telling me that all three of these cases will have an update with respect to the status? >> yes. >> have you spoken about the other case? >> it is the last one. >> do you know much about...

>> our office and internal roof affairs hasn't received a report from the office yet. >> the officer was preparing for the range and discharged the firearm accidentally inside the station. >> that one, yes, that one is an oid. that one is complete, yes. >> and the results of that investigation are? >> that one should have been not in policy. >> okay. >> we're looking at a letter here. >> there was no powerpoint on the first quarter 2019 report like you did for the 2019? >> the powerpoint will be presented after the cases have been completed to do the fdrb

presentation. >> the two cases or the three cases that you just talked about >> let me show you the memo, because don't we have a copy of this memo? i have questions about the way it is written. i am just trying to make it clear for the commissioner. i don't think we are all on the same page. >> this is what we have provided there was a three-page letter from chief scott and then a two-page summary of the first quarter fdrb session that occurred on march 26th, 2019, and it had four incidents. that is the 16001, and the 18001

where apparently they were referred back for 30 days for further investigation clarification we don't have status on those. and then the third one is an oid which is zero zero one, and that also was sent back for 30 days for clarification, and we don't have a status on that. you are saying that those three cases will be put into the powerpoint and presented after the next meeting? >> correct. there will be an update for the 2,192nd quarter with the status because they were sent back to internal affairs, and when was sent back to the academy. they need to be presented to the board again with updates of what they ask for the cases to be investigated. >> my question is, then why are they saying that you send it back for 30 days for further investigation and clarification

when it is obviously taking three months? this was in march and now you're saying it will be presented in june? >> there hasn't been an fdrb scheduled since march. they are in the process of getting scheduled. [please stand by]

. . . >> is that a typo? or is it the 4-1 and i am not sure which one. and it says 2018-001, but i wasn't sure if that was accurate. >> is that below it? >> above it. >> so there it is. all right. that