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

>> president, i would like to take roll call. [ roll call ]. >> clerk: you have a quorum. >> thank you, all. welcome to the february 12, 2020, meeting. we have a long presentation regarding the budget tonight, so we will have two minutes for public comment. with that, we are ready for the first item. >> clerk: item 1, consent calendar, receive and file action. sfpd/dpa protocol report 4th quarter 2019. >> do we have a report on this or this is just to accept?

we don't have anyone from the d.p.a. who can help us? why don't we skip that item and go to the next item for now. >> clerk: line item 2, reports to the commission, discussion. 2a, chief's report. weekly crime trends. provide an overview of offenses occurring in san francisco significant incidents (chief's report will be limited to a brief description of the significant incidents. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the incidents the chief describes for a future commission meeting.) - major events (provide a summary of planned activities and events occurring since the previous meeting. this will include a brief overview of any unplanned events or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting.)

commission inquiries (provide a brief follow-up to inquiries made by commissioners during previous meetings to include: police response to nfc championship celebrations throughout the city presentation of the department's collection and analysis of sexual assault kit evidence and reporting of results to sexual assault victims report, per commission resolution 16-28, adopted april 20, 2016 presentation regarding the law enforcement assisted diversion program ("lead") >> thank you and good evening. >> as always, i'll start my report with the weekly crime trends, then i'll touch on significant incidents, major events, provide some follow up on a commission inquiry regarding the n.f.c. championship, our response to the post-game celebrations. then the deputy chief and his team will have a presentation on the analysis of sexual assault evidence. then commander foray will present on law enforcement

assisted diversion, as requested by the commission a couple months ago or a month or so ago. starting off with our crime trends for the week, we are down on both violent and property crime. we're 2% down on overall crime, part 1 crime. our property crime was down 2%, which includes our burglary, motor vehicle thefts, larceny, and arson. auto burglaries are down 25% compared to 2017 when the numbers were at an all-time highs. our total violent crimes are down 1%. our homicides, we have three this year compared to five last year. we're up on robberies year to date. we have 18 more incidents compared to this time last year. so this is a point of focus for our department.

our sexual assaults are down significantly from this reporting period, down by 22 crimes, which is a 57% decrease. looking at gun violence, overall we're down 11%. we have one shooting in the past week and in total eight shootings resulting in eight victims of gun violence year to date. out of the eight, two were fatal and six have been non-fatal. there is a report that there were no homicides in the past week. we are down from the same time last year. traffic, we are at two vision zero traffic fatales year to date. we did have two major traffic collisions over the past week. one was on the 9th of february at 3:15 p.m. in this incident, a pedestrian

ran into the street in front of a vehicle and sustained major injuries but is suspected to survive. the other was in southern district. this is a hit and run that occurred on february 7 at 4:00 p.m. in that case, a suspect vehicle, a truck, ran over the victim's foot and fled. the victim has some pain and is expected to survive and the injuries don't appear to be life-threatening or serious. in terms of largest events, the biggest event is the warriors are in town -- actually, they're not in town. the chase center will be hosting a concert which starts on the 13th and another concert on saturday, the 15th. now i will go into our response to some of the questions that we

received from the commission regarding the response to the n.f.c. championship celebrations. i'm going to give you a brief overview. there was some specific questions that some of the commissioners asked. i will address those questions and take any additional questions you have. on sunday, january 19, the 49-ers hosted the green bay packers and won the championship which moved them into the super bowl. the game began at 3:40 p.m. and ended at approximately 7:00 p.m. in the past, we have had spontaneous celebrations after these victories which have required multiple deployments to various districts. we thought that was the case on the 19th and it was. each district station had staffing dedicated to n.f.c.-dedicated events. all of the areas had some levels

of increased staffing, both on duty and off duty -- i mean e.w.w., overtime, to address the increase in crowds at bars, et cetera. this increase in staff was to ensure that our regular calls to service were not interrupted throughout the city in the event of celebratory activity after the game. i'm going to go into the actual incident that night because i know the commission was very interested in both the donning of personal protective equipment and use of force. i'm going to go into some detail about that. first starting on the policy of personal protective equipment. all officers are assigned personal protective equipment to include a helmet, face shield, gloves,

rode through the district and one motorcycle struck a pedestrian at the intersection of jefferson and levenworth. the tenderloin had staff available, but there were no reported incidents. park traffic concentrated on foot traffic and bars, with both people staying inside the establishments.

in the mission district crowds started pouring into the streets with a gathering spot at 24th and mission. also, on mission between 24th and 16th street, there were large crowds of people celebrating after the game. also, the valencia corridor on 16th street. close to 8 p.m. due to the size of the crowd, additional tactical teams were deployed to the area. by 9 p.m. there were 150 to 200 people in the area. the crowds were much larger earlier, but most of the folks left. at around 9:00 p.m. there were still 150 to 200 people in the area. that's what you'll see on the video in a second. the people in the area were posing public safety concerns, including blocking major

roadways on mission street and destructive behavior, which included throwing bottles randomly at officers, shooting fireworks, drinking from open containers. the area posing the most hazardous situation was at mission and 24th. by 10:00 p.m. the intersection was littered with debris, including broken glass and officers stayed within 50 yards of the intersection, at which time the remaining crime became more boisterous and volatile, throwing bottles and other objects directly at officers that were lined up 50 yards from them. it was this time the decision was made by the incident commander to disperse the crowd to prevent further disruptive behavior and prevent injury. the personnel began issuing dispersal orders, which you will hear on the video, over a

loudspeaker. this is a long-range diverse used to disperse crowds. the order advised the crowd this was an unlawful assembly and instructed the crowds to clear the streets and onto the sidewalk. i want to make note of this. we actually did not ask them to leave the area. we just asked the crowds to clear the streets and go to the sidewalks. as the line of officers began to clear the streets, officers continued to instruct the crowd to remain on the sidewalk. at this time, multiple bottles were thrown directly at officers, making direct contact with at least two officers and one police vehicle. the use of less-lethal options was authorized by the incident commander. it was at this time that three arrests were made. one for intentionally walking into an officer. one for swinging at and striking an officer and resisting arrest. and a third, one for delaying a peace officer in the course of their duties and for resisting

arrest. all three individuals were cited and released. so at this time i want to show you the video. i have hours of videos, but these were basically snippets to give you a feel for the atmosphere. >> can you give us a time frame how many hours this is after the game. >> yes, it is on the video. this is shortly around 10:00, i believe, but it's actually on the video. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> i'm sorry? >> is the time in the upper right corner? >> yes. let me see -- this one is around 10:00, i believe. what is the time on there? >> [ indiscernible ] --

>> this was after the majority of the crowd had left and this was i believe around 10:00. you have 150 to 200 people there. but the majority of the people that had been there earlier celebrating without any violence had dispersed. i'm sorry, if you could start that over, because i think we -- there we go. [video presentation].

>> this video is after the actual bottles -- after the street had been cleared. what this video you're about to see depicts are after some of the fires that remained. there were several trash can fires. all of those fires were put out by officers who had fire extinguishers as part of their equipment.

again, we faced these types of situations before, so we were prepared with fire extinguishers. this video shows one fire that was still lingering, just to give you an idea of what was happening. these fires were hit we believe during that episode where the bottles were being thrown and the officers were able to put them out. [video presentation] [video presentation].

>> what time was that? >> this was around the same time. so all this is after 10:00. so once the intersection was cleared, officers began, as i pointed out, extinguishing small fires that had been started. this was even with the bottles still being thrown at the officers. i mentioned one of the issues that we had that particular evening were side shows in various parts of the city. the first sideshow i already talked about, the 20 or 30 motorcycles in the central district that resulted in one person being hilt by a motorcycle. in bayview officers responded to a call of reckless driving and observed approximately 100 motorcycles driving towards san

francisco. a large group of these motorcycles were observed on 3rd street driving to gillman park and driving in and out of the park. a number of calls of reckless driving were received. between 7:40 and 8:15 p.m. at 25th and valencia, there were calls of reckless driving, cars honking their horns for over an hour. at 9:20 p.m., there was reports of vehicles doing doughnuts in the streets. as to fires, we had calls related to fires at 9:30 p.m. in the 600 block of mission and at 10:20 p.m. in the block of bartlett. the force you saw in the video was a less-lethal force option. after this option, the less

lethal techniques were being used. with all those bottles you saw being thrown at officers, they maintained their discipline. none of the officers went after the individuals throwing the bottles, which is pretty important in this type of situation, but that was a call made by the on-scene commander. basically their mission was to get the streets clear to reduce this situation from being what it was, which is a very dangerous and unsafe situation. as you saw bottles going over the heads of the very heads of the officers that were there to protect. to incidents and that decision was made by the on-site commanding officer. their objective was to clear the streets and keep everybody safe. as bottles and other objects

were being thrown, including directly at officers, six officers fired a total -- and this was to commissioner elias' question, six officers fired seven rounders of 40-millimeter less lethal launchers which deployed foam batons. one round was fired towards one individual and two rounds were fired at two individuals throwing milk crates and bottles at officers. one round was fired to an individual throwing a glass bottle. one round was fired at a person who was making a motion as if they were throwing an object. one round was fired at a person seen as throwing a bottle at an officer. there was a use of force, and that was a physical control hold to gain control of a suspect's

hand, resulting in complaint of pain to the hand. that subject was assessed at the scene by the fire department and released for further law enforcement processing. they were actually cited and released. no, i'm sorry, i think that person was actually taken to the station. so basically that is the scenario. i believe i've answered all the commission's questions from last week, but i'm happy to answer any further questions that you might have. >> okay. thank you both. >> so i think these pictures -- i mean, it was a long name, but did that game early at 5:00 or 6:00? >> no, ma'am. i think it was about 7:30. >> i thought it was early because the super bowl started much later if i remember. >> yeah, i had it in the report. i think it ended at 7:30.

>> i guess the question is at least the people who -- the people i've talked to, are they indicating that you had -- mission street was already closed before they got there. after the game when they went down there, they're claiming it was closed from brine to mission, mission street north bound was closed. they're saying you had valencia down to portrero down to 21st street, which is quite a lot of streets. they're claiming -- the impression i'm getting from some of these people is when they got there, the streets were already in the middle of the street and had closed mission street down. so you're saying the celebration was going on in mission street? now, the people do say there were people walking along the sidewalk on mission street, but when they tried to walk on the sidewalk, they wouldn't let the

latinos walk on the sidewalk, but other people did. they're claiming racial profiling. when you were going to handle it, you had people dressed like the tech squad or they were already there. one of the things you said to me is there was side shows going on. from what i hear here is there was one donut going on. i don't know what reckless driving is, having their horns on, but all i heard was one donut. i don't know what reckless driving means. these are vague and pretty broad. the motorcycle, the central and the bayview district, did you have the central district shut down and the bayview district? if you did, what areas did you shut down? did you have the same amount of force in the bayview or central? >> there's a lot of questions. i'll respond. if i miss any, i'll respond.

as far as the street closures, the streets were closed prior to the bottles. that decision was made for a couple of reasons. one of the things that we intended to do from the start was to facilitate -- i mean, we expected celebrations. basically we knew that we would be basically giving up the street. when you have that amount of people -- as long as there's people, we closed the streets intentionally to prevent people mixing with cars, which we believe and i believe is the right thing to do. yes, the streets were closed in anticipation that exactly what happened happened, they would spill onto the streets and be excited the 49-ers won. it is not a good idea from a public safety perspective to have the streets open to vehicles with hundreds of people on the streets. we've seen many, many tragedies

that have resulted. the side shows were being reported all over the city, including the side shows and the doughnuts and all of that. the sideshows are dangerous in and of themselves. when you make sideshows, it was proactive in order to not allow that to happen in our city. so it was an intentional and conscious decision to close the streets. >> was there a sideshow on mission? >> no, but the thought process there is let's not allow ourselves to be put in that position where people are in streets where cars can drive down and do what was happening. we already had a report. so 80 to 100 motorcycles coming into the city and they did come into the city and they did sideshows. >> what i'm getting at, chief, is people were saying -- if you were going to close down the street -- because you did tell us you had plans in place for the celebration. none of us asked you what plans

you had in place. if the streets were going to be closed, a public announcement should have been made here. the low riders like to go into the mission. they were turned away. when they were trying to walk, they say they were being turned down. they said white people were walking there and they wouldn't let the latinos there. they claim it was closed when they got there. so they feel it's racial profiling. they wanted to know -- and i think you were in a meeting with this. the motorcycle gang sounds like they were in the central and the bayvi bayview. so it's really information to the community. if you're not going to allow cars and make the street closed to cars, say that and make it clear, rather than turning it away and having a traffic jam. then it sounds like there were four officers -- and you were expanding the street closures.

first of all it was brian down to portrero. >> can we get the chief's response to the racial profiling. >> yes. i mean, on the video you can clearly see in my opinion what happened there. the officers were there to keep people safe. the accusation why people were allowed to walk and be in the streets and latinos were not -- >> do you have any video from the earlier in the evening? >> there's lots of videos, but the officers turned on the videos when the situation started to get volatile. >> so you don't have any video prior to that? >> prior to that people were celebrating and it wasn't volatile. i just want to -- another point

i want to make out, we did meet with community members on this. that's an area where we can do better. with the super bowl, we had a similar traffic plan when the team won -- even if they didn't win and we were better with the c.h.p. and m.p.a. and we could have done better then. a lot of these decisions are made spontaneously. the decision to close the street in my opinion was a sound one. we can fix our issues and work on the communications. we did that. with the super bowl, we had a solid communications plan in place. so that was a lesson learned. part of that was sitting down and meeting with the community and hearing their concerns. so i think some good comes out of that in terms of our super bowl preparation. >> that's a point i was trying to make. maybe we had some communication of what was going on it wouldn't

have escalated the way it did. >> thanks for reporting back to us and providing video. it would have been interesting to see a little bit more of the body cam footage because i think that is telling. it seemed like it was an ongoing event throughout the night. so this sort of singular camera footage does make it somewhat clearer. you indicated there were two rounds that were shot at individuals that were throwing bottles. i'm trying to understand the reasoning, is it that people who are throwing bottles are shot at but not arrested? >> so what i'm saying is when you're in a line like that, if you don't have discipline -- the worst thing an officer can do is get a bottle thrown at him or

her and they take off and start chasing the person throwing the bottle. it breaks down the discipline. the officers were extremely disciplined. you saw all the bottles coming at them. they did, as i reported, use the less lethal eraws to fire them at individuals throwing bottles. whether those individuals were struck or not, the action there was designed to prevent the bottles from being thrown. it was not only the officers that were in jeopardy. what you saw is bottles going over the heads to the people talking to the officers. that was a difficult situation and they did use the eraws, but the specific purpose was to stop the bottles. some of those individuals who had those foam rounds fired at them left and got away. the point there is this was a

very disciplined operation in terms of the discipline and the purpose of what the officers were there to do. it wasn't about the bottle throw you go -- throwing, but they were there to keep people safe. >> we're ready for the next item, the analysis of the sexual assault kit. >> deputy azar will make this presentation. >> deputy chief, welcome. >> [ indiscernible ] -- members of the commission, chief scott, director henderson, members of the department, members of the public. i'm pete lazar from the investigations bureau. i'm here due to resolution 16-28, which requires the

department to report out on a semi-annual basis the status of the sexual assault evidence kit in terms of where we are, how many kits, if there's any delays and things of that nature. so i'm going to briefly go through the list and give you a status update from the reporting period of july 1 through december 31, 2019. first to start out, in terms of collection and processing -- by the way, this evening i have with me captain sergio chin and lieutenant rachael moran sitting in the audience, along with director sanchez from the crime lab and crime scene investigations in case there's further investigations. based on this report, i want to thank them tremendously for their work. with regard to to collection and processing, first item, number of on-time within five days sexual assault evidence kits collected by trauma recovery rape treatment center and submitted to the crime lab within five days of the

incident, there were 160 for that six-month reporting period. next, the number of late beyond five days evidence kits submitted to the crime labs was six. that's generally from outside agency reporting when we get that later. that was six. the next submission of late submissions outside of jurisdictions and kits submitted during holidays, those came from outside jurisdictions, that's why they were late. number 3, number of sexual assault evidence kits processed by the crime lab within 120 days, all 166. item 4, the average turnaround time for sexual assault evidence kits process completion, 23 days. very remarkable. a lot of kits were below 23 days. within 15 days those kits were examined. item 5, number of sexual assault evidence kits outsourced to an

outside lab for processing within 120 days, zero. we handle all of our own kits. number 6, number of sexual assault evidence kits resulting in a foreign d.n.a. profile other than the victim/survivor subsequently being entered into codis within 120 days, 82. the number of foreign d.n.a. profiles resulting in a codis match, there were 27. so having a match, 27. item 8 is the number of foreign d.n.a. profiles resulting in no codis profile match, 55. so again the number of sexual assault evidence kits not resulting in a foreign d.n.a. profile is 84, which totals 166, which is our total from above. item 10 has to do with notifications and outcomes. item 10 is the number of victim/survivor notifications made by special victims per the

victim bill of rights, penal code section 180, 129. item 11, the number of victims, survivors declined and/or refused notification, there were 21. item 12, number of attempted notifications, being that wrong number, relocation, no call back, re-attempts, zero. the number of outside agency cases, notification to the victim, out of all the cases, 16. item 14, number of sexual assault notice kits with no notification, there was zero. in terms of the case status, item 15, out of all those cases, there are 69 and we have reasons for our inactivated case status. the number of cleared or closed cases, which is item 16, 35. so we cleared or closed 35. item 17, the amount of open cases during that period, 62.

item 18, the number of cases charged by the district attorney's office during that period, 15. last item, item 19, the number of cases discharged by the district attorney, one. and again, i want to thank director sanchez, the crime laboratory, and their staff. unlike the conversation we had many years ago, there are no backlogs. we are moving forward. we have a great process. we are a model for other agencies and everyone is working hard when it comes to this particular topic. at this time i'll take any questions you may have. if there are any questions, i'll bring up the director or the captain. >> what are the occasions when an outside jurisdiction would be involved? >> captain chin, if you'll come up. i think what happens is -- he'll clarify this if i don't have this correct. an incident happens outside of san francisco, and then the kit

is sent to us to process for that agency 200 people in the area. >> because it's a resident of san francisco? >> good evening, commissioners, chief, director. no. anybody -- so a crime occurred outside of san francisco. anybody can come into sfgh and conduct a sexual assault kit. it doesn't matter if you are a resident or not. >> i see. >> thank you for that presentation. i'm wondering if there is a way we can get the word out. you noted at the end there is no backlog of sexual assault evidence kit. i'm a citizen here like all of us, and i remember getting mailers a few months ago about the backlog of sexual assault evidence kits. i knew from being here on the commission that that was ridiculous and not true. but the average citizen in san francisco did not know that. so i'm wondering if there is a way for you to get that out to the public, because it was

concerning and it seemed like this was a big issue and it was a concerning thing that didn't exist. we know that on the commission, but the average person reading that would have been very concerned. >> i'm glad you brought that up. chief lazar, actually we had a leadership meeting and what he's implementing in the new future is the twitter of investigations. so that will go out on a weekly basis from not just special victims, but robbery, burglary, whatever, all the investigation. great point and that's how we're going to get our point across and great news to get our point across. >> i imagine if you googled san francisco and sexual assault, you'll have all those articles from way back where we had a huge backlog, it was shameful. i have to say that the department really went and took care of the backlog and it's really come a long way from that

major backlog and all that harsh, but justified, criticism to be a model in the country. i do applaud you for that. i think there would be confusion if you google sexual assault in san francisco, to hear how bad it was. >> i'm glad to have inherited a great process. in addition to social media, this is something i could talk to the director about in our media relations, so when you do google it, the first article is how great things are now. we'll have that offline conversation. >> i was looking at line 7 and line 18. line 7 is the number of d.n.a. profiles with a match is 87 and the number of cases charged is 15. is that 15 out of 27 or was it 15 out of 160 --

>> well, 160 cases total and the d.a. has charged 15. potentially this year we may have charged more, we'll report out on that in six months. that may mean that the investigators are working on the cases, witnesses, evidence. so we're not really discouraged by that number. we just know this is a work-in-progress and we hope to build on that number now. >> so overall do we know what percentage of this 160 or what the total is, do we know -- do you have -- were you able to keep an ongoing tally of what actually is charged? i mean, 15 is small compared to 160. i understand some is ongoing and stuff. maybe there should be a line -- well, i guess -- >> well, we're keeping records on all of it. again, 15 are charged. we could be working -- 50 or 60 or whatever the number is here

to those that we're working up or on, we want to make sure we bring a good case to the district attorney's office. and then of course a lot of those profiles, we're waiting for a match in codis and potentially any day we could get a match depending on someone getting arrested for another crime. we're monitoring everything closely and seeing what gets charged and what doesn't. >> thank you both. did you want to say something else? >> thank you very much. >> the final item under the chief's record is lead.

>> good evening, president, vice president, commissioners, chief scott, director henderson, lieutenant -- is lieutenant murphy out there? if she's got a minute, i'd love it if she could stay.

good evening. i'm here tonight to present information to you at the commission on the lead program that the city and county of san francisco implemented two years ago. for those not in the know, lead is the acronym for law enforcement and diversion. i'm joined by two of my colleagu colleagu colleagues, and i asked lieutenant murphy to stay because i wanted to thank her a little bit and wanted her to hear and not watch it later on tv. lead was first developed in seattle. it was a response in a pretty significant and unique collaboration between prosecutors, defenders, civil rights advocates, law enforcement, and case managers. it was designed in an effort to

change the paradigm on the war on drugs. currently there are 38 cities that have lead programs. there are three in california that are already up and running. san francisco is one of them. los angeles and costa county are the others. there are approximately 70 communities in the united states that are either evaluating their own lead programs, developing a lead program, or developing to launch a lead program. again, it was originally designed as a harm-reduction-oriented program to address low-level criminal conduct. so we launched in october of 2017 with three goals. it's a pilot program. it was a two-year program with a $2 million grant provided to the city and county of san francisco. on the bottom of my slide i have some images to help remind me the list of the partners because

that list is long in san francisco. they include the san francisco's sheriff's department, glide, the selton institute, the san francisco department of public health, the public defender's office, the district attorney's office, adult probation, and i apologize if i left anyone out. the three goals were to reduce drug and alcohol recidivism, to strengthen partnership collaboration between city and community based services to meet the leads of lead participants, and to improve the health and housing status of lead participants. so to discuss the process, there were two portals where an individual might be -- might enter into the lead program. the first were social contacts and the second were pre-booking

referrals. so social contact would involve a police officer either in the tenderloin district or the mission district being in the community every day, knowing who is on the street, knowing which individuals are involved with low-level criminal conduct that meet the requirements or the criteria for lead, and then making a referral. in terms of pre-booking offenses, the list included simple drug possession, 11-550 of the health and safety code of being under the influence, prostitution and loitering for the purposes of prostitution offense offenses. then there was drug offenses, theft, and tampering with vehicles. there were exclusions which would make a person ineligible for lead, and those exclusions included drug sales in a school

zone, drug sales to a minor, drug possession of more than 5 grams to a minor. in terms of sales, someone who had a felony conviction in the last five years and individuals who had an open case either for a violence-related crime or a crime involving violence, excuse me, or possession of weapon. so this first graph that we have shows the results of the women and men of the san francisco police department, referrals that they made in these two districts. we had 108 pre-booking referrals that were made, 223 social contacts. our total for the san francisco police department for referrals was 331. now, within these groups for the program and totals to date, we've had 116 misdemeanor pre-booking referrals. 76 of those were made by officers of the san francisco police department.

for felonies for the entire program, there were 22 felony pre-booking referrals made, people who were diverted and given a referral. it's important to note that all of those referrals were made by the san francisco police departme department. >> commander, the time frame is from inception? >> yes. >> through what date? >> january. >> my next slide includes results from the san francisco sheriff's department and the bart police. >> i don't offer this in any way as a commentary, it's just that this is what was produced. you'll see the circle graph to the right demonstrates that from these 434 referrals, 76% of those were made by police officers in san francisco. there were two districts where lead was implemented or where we

had officers deployed, trained, who were equipped to make these determinations and make referrals. in the tenderloin, 275 referrals were made, in the mission 159 were made. that's total. so that includes the bart p.d., the sheriff, as well as officers from the san francisco police department. >> [ indiscernible ] -- >> pardon? >> yes, ma'am. tender 275 and in the mission 179. the numberers are one metric, but what i would like to point out is the success of this program, the number of these referrals is due to the open-minded men and women of the san francisco police department who offer these individuals and opportunity for a different path. i want to acknowledge the leadership of captain carl fabri from tenderloin, lieutenant

rachael moran. she was at mission station as a patrol lieutenant and she jumped in on this right away. there were a lot of people who got referred because of her. lieutenant dean hall from tenderloin and sergeant davin cole who is now assigned to the healthy streets team. so this graph -- these two things represent a snapshot. all of this statistical information related to demographics, race, gender, is captured by the department of public health. the way that that occurs is a police officer makes a referral. a person responds to the call and they complete an intake. once the intake is completed, that information is compiled and

a record is kept. what's important to note about these two graphs is that this is a snapshot in time. these are lead participants. so these are not -- this is a group of 156 individuals that was reported out to us on the 27th of last month. this snapshot represents approximately 35% of all the referrals that were made program-wide. so those are the numbers. the reason they fluctuate is people come into the program. they might be housed. their needs are met and they successfully complete or other people come in and they leave. so that number is ever-changing. it's sort of a living number, if you will. part of the lead program was an analysis conducted by the california state university in long beach. we have a number of meetings

related to lead. one of them is the policy group committee and includes department heads from all of our partners, everybody who is involved in this program. her last name is malm who is a ph.d. who let the team of other ph.d.s who look at our results. they captured data all the way up through june of 2019, which is where they stopped. to compare us to seattle which is sort of the best-practice standard because they've been at it a long time. a lot of us, including myself and director sutton went to seattle to speak to the people on the ground who were responsible for the implementation of the program from the beginning. one of the people that acted as a mentor to me, his first name is chris and i can't remember

his last name. i hope he's not watching this on the internet from seattle, he worked for the public defenders office. we had a lot of conversations over the last two years about what worked. he's a big believer in this program and he came down a lot of times to sit on meetings that included police officers from mission, tenderloin station, lieutenants, people from the department of public health, who are the folks who are really getting the work done. so the folks from california state long beach did a comparison. [ please stand by ]

they were at a rate 302 percent higher than their lead counterparts. at 12 months it's more dramatic. they looked at the felony arrest circumstances for people who were lead referrals and people who were system as usual. people who were system at usual were two and a half times more likely to be arrested for a felony, 257 percent more than their counterparts who were referred to lead.

felony cases were three and a half times higher greater than their lead referral counterparts. and their misdemeanor arrest citation incidents were six times higher, 623 percent more than their lead counterparts. >> we need to know, 72 percent higher citation rate. that means the folks sent to the lead program had a higher citation rate because that's how it was being addressed but these are the folks that had higher misdemeanor and felony rates? >> yes >> why don't you go through that? >> what this means. >> the folks at california state long beach completed an evaluation. if i recall correctly it's over 130 pages long.

they are all ph.d.es who explain this and did this evaluation on the assessment. so to get it in a concise direct response, when they presented this information to us at the policy group, they pointed to these two things as evidence that the goals that were set out for lead in order to decrease recidivism for individuals that were being referred, that this was evidence of those two things. so this slide, i apologize, is probably not as clear as it could be. >> if you could tell us, what is the 72 percent higher citation rate mean for the lead referrals? what happened to them? what does that mean? >> can you explain -- i think i can help, i'm trying. can you explain why, for example, someone would be given a citation of an arrest? i think i get what this is trying to get at. people got citations rather than being arrested and booked. >> right.

>> so can you explain the circumstances and what kind of factors go into whether or not someone gets a citation as opposed to being arrested and booked? >> so, again, the best practice standard here is once an officer makes a referral of an individual to lead, the goal is to work with police, prosecutor, public defender, case manager to make certain once that person is in this program that we all work in a collaborative fashion to make sure they don't end up in jail. because their research shows that people that end up in jail don't do as well as those who stay in the program, out of jail. that impact, there's a significant impact that's not good for them for them changing the trajectory of their life if they go into jail. so, again, i apologize, because the 72 percent higher citation rate is about as clear as mud. but the second -- >> i just want to know, does

that mean within the six montserrat following the referral to the lead program -- months following the referral to the lead program, they received some citation for some reason. was it related to the initial interaction or was it subsequent? >> it was subsequent, and they were for misdemeanor violations >> so this is how many people got in trouble again? >> yes. but it's citations. >> yes. >> and why were they citations as opposed to misdemeanor or felony. we are going to have to do this one at a time. >> so that information i don't have. these numbers were offered to us as an indication that people who were not involved in lead, this is what i took away from her presentation. that people who were not involved in lead had a 302 percent higher rate of being, coming into contact with law enforcement for committing a

disdemeanor. >> i get that part. so they got three times the misdemeanors as the people in the lead program got. and then they got two and a half times the felony arrests that folks in the lead program got, is that right? >> people who were system as usual not referred to lead were two and a half times more likely during that 12 month period to be arrested for a felony. >> and what does the three and a half times mean? >> a felony case. so prosecution of a case that they were arrested for. >> all right. and then the misdemeanor arrest was six times higher? >> yes. >> i guess the only one i personally don't understand fully is the citation and how that's treated. >> i think what this is trying to say is that people who completed lead were more like likely to get cited as opposed to arrested. whatever they did afterwards, they did not rise to the level of danger or concern where they were arrested and booked. they were simply cited out and

they could appear in court at a later date so to me that's supposed to signal something positive because the alternative would have been they were arrested and booked because whatever they did was of a more dangerous or volatile quality. >> exactly. the folks who were -- sorry. >> so commissioner elias. >> as someone who actually was there when the pilot program began here in san francisco, and i do think that we, she used to be a da and was my counterpart in this program as well as my adversary in many cases was tiffany sutton, and we were given the opportunity to go to seattle, to the founder of this program and created this program to address recidivism, and the issue was that people keep coming to jail and it's not deterring behavior. when you go to jail it's not making someone who is addicted stop using drugs, it's not making someone stop engaging behavior that's harmful. and we had all these programs

that were zero tolerance type of models like drug court or prop 47 where it's like someone who is suffering from addiction, they can't always just stop cold turkey. so this model was aimed at harm reduction. so that it's a whole different style and model that law enforcement and social workers and people who are dealing in crisis can emulate. so the program was designed, again, for, it was a harm reduction model. it addresses recidivism and the racial disparities in the criminal justice system. and those were the three goals or tenants of the seattle program. tiffany sutton and i went to seattle and we spoke with the people who founded the program, the officers who were actually day-to-day implementing the program and sort of other individuals on a national basis who were trying to emulate this program. san francisco received a grant for this program for five years

or three years? three years. and there's only so many slots allotted to this program and it was to address recidivism and people in crisis. and one of the things that lead wanted to do was address sort of not only the addiction issues but sort of nonviolent felonies that sort of arise because of addiction, mental health and crisis situations. and so i think that's what the goal was, and when we look at the analysis, because i did reach out to the district attorney as well as the public defender who are now handling the lead program who used to be tiffany and i back in the day, and this analysis is centered on the fact that lead is in fact working in terms of recidivism. you are seeing individuals rather than a resolving door going in and out of jail on various arrests, what's happening is once they engage in lead, and once you get referred

to lead, they walk you through the entire system. you have a social worker that's assigned to you from day one, someone who can help people who are in crisis, because we don't realize that when when someone is in crisis, things like going to go check in with your probation officer or going to glide to get services won't be that doesn't compute to them, because they are in crisis. every task that we have that we take for granted, because we do it on a daily basis, when someone is in crisis, those are huge issues they can't really comprehend, so there's someone assigned to them to make sure they go to court, make sure they check in with the probation officer, and the officers are there to make the connection and identify people that they see in the community that they come into contact with on a daily basis to refer them to lead or certain types of crimes. so i think this analysis really shows recidivism, not necessarily sort of the 72 percent higher citation rate i think does alarm people

because because a it looks like they are people who are participating in lead are more -- they are committing more crimes, when that's actually, it's the counter. >> right. [off mic] >> it is. and both commissioners are right. i went to seattle long ago. and i know, it does, it looks misleading when you look at the 302 percent higher rate, i mean the 72 percent higher citation rate, and i think that collectly collect -- intellectually we think they are doing more things. they are not doing more serious things to land them in jail, which is a good thing. i was very happy, and i think our team was very happy to see this. >> i wanted to make sure we all were understanding the numbers in front of us.

commissioner dejesus, do you have a question on this or you had an answer? >> i have a question when it's all over. i actually had questions. >> let him finish and then we will. >> probably the better quote for this, because, again, these are all ph.d.s, even trying to explain in the policy committee required a little explanation. but what she said, and i can't quote her verbatim was that their evaluation pointed to one thing, that people referred to lead were changing their behavior for the better. so probably should have just put that quote up there. i apologize. >> all right. commissioner elias. did you have a question? >> i did. >> i have a couple, and i promise to get through them quickly. selection bias, when seattle

started, i believe they had three officers assigned to lead, los angeles had five. i might have the numbers flipped. one of the things that the doctor said, the ph.d. said at our meeting was our strategy of deploying this in the tenderloin in the mission was over 200 officers. the result was there was an effect due to plege implementation. this was rolled out, eliminated that effect. social contact outpaced referrals of my one of the things that lead has a lot of resources, a lot of documents, they have core principles for every partner within the lead program, and they have core principles for law enforcement, and one of them, and i was told this repeatedly by the folks in seattle is that it was very important to allow social contacts, it helped build faith in the process for police officers who would then be left

skeptical and be more willing to make those referrals in the future. the second goal that we pointed out very early on in the process was that they felt we built stronger relationships with the case managers and actually hopefully mikaylah will have an opportunity to speak to that. so our kecks with caseworkers, we -- our connections with caseworkers. i'm going to leave that and offer an opportunity for mckayla. did you want to? i just want to give her an opportunity because we did get a lot of feedback from folks at glide, and by we i mean the police officers, police department, and it made a difference. i wanted to give her an opportunity to speak. >> good evening.

>> so i am one of the caseworkers for lead. and i would say that when i first came on, time to build the relationship with officers and clients was very, very hard. especially being a minority and everything that is going on in the world, you are scared of the police, to be honest. it's intimidating, the way they approached was intimidating. and building relationships with officers for myself, i've seen a huge difference. it's almost like i can only speak for mission, because that's the district i worked in. it's almost like the officers are getting back to community policing. i have clients who have asked for officers by name. i have clients who i outreached and waned to be brought into lead and was literally like i want sergeant coal to submit by

referral. and i was like i have another officer, and they were like no, i want him to do it. there are officers who are driving by in their cars and our clients who are homeless, drug addicted, mental health, are walking up to the cars and talking to the officers. so it's not so punitive like i see the police, i'm scared they are going to arrest me, they are not here to help me. and working with us as well because the community as a whole did not, i won't say they accepted us right up front and was like are you undercover police? is this going to get me put in jail, is this a joke? i'm not playing, i don't want to do it. and so building relationships with the officers, there's times where an officer can be out in the community and come up on a client that's not a client that has called us literally on our phone like hey, i have this person, they'll be a good fit for your program, and the officer sat there and waited for us to come on board.

especially with the homeless, with dpw, most of the homeless are getting their stuff taken, when they come through, their tents are getting taken. they are asking for us and for officers. they are asking call this person, they can tell you what's going on with me. and we've been able to go out there with officers, and it's been very, it's been uplifting to the community. there's a lot of entities within the police force that i did not know about. i've had clients who are sex workers, who then what is the word, they've been abused. and that's the last thing you want to do to talk to a police officer when you are a sex worker and you've been abused. talking and working with sergeant coal, that's how i learned about vvu, and i had officers who came out in plain clothes, was willing to get in my car to go meet the client in a starbucks, and shows the community we are not punitive,

and that we really are trying to help. and there's clients who work with other programs in if other agencies who are asking to be referred to lead. they are asking can you please refer me to lead, i need help, and i want the help. and i agree that a lot of it is hand holding, but if i was on the opposite side of it, i would not want to walk that by myself because it's intimidating. you can go to any drug rehab and say you are addicted and they'll close the door on you. there's a lot of red tape, a lot of yellow tape. so to have someone holding your hand saying i'm going to walk you through this process and then to say i have an officer i can call who will help me get through this door has been amazingly beneficial. so i just wanted to speak on that. >> thank you >> thank you so much. >> thank you for speaking and thank you for the work you do. commander, you probably have some questions coming your way. are you finished now? >> yes, sir. >> commissioner elias. >> yeah, i have an hour of questions for you

>> i hope not. >> just kidding. thanks for coming to speak with us. the felton institute is a phenomenal institute, and they were there at the table at the inception of this program. and i think the success of this program is attributed to their participation partly. i am very happy to see that we now are getting, we are now receiving more police officer buy-in. i remember when i first started, being in lead was the first time i met the chief actually was a conversation we had about the problems of this program and officer buy-in because this program is only successful if there is officer buy-in. and i think that officers at the time were sort of feeling that they come into contact with people in crisis every day and they give them sort of referrals or programs but they are not working, and it's frustrating for an officer to continually do that every day, especially with the homeless crisis we have, to

see people every day, in crisis and not being able to see any sort of resolution. so i'm really happy to see that we are now having officer buy-in, because i think that's really what the success of the program is based on. the social context versus pre pre-booking, i would hope that sort of in the future that that sort of will level out a little more, because i know there are only so many social contacts that were allotted in the program. and i think that it's really aimed at getting people who are really being arrested for crime rather than just social situations that are being referred to the program will be really helpful. and my hope is that this program actually spreads out to different areas and, chief, you can talk about how successful you may think that would be, because this program is only centered in the tenderloin and mission, and there are other districts who can benefit,

especially like northern where there's a lot of retail stores and things like that, which -- >> yes, commissioner. our hope is that it does spread to other districts, and our policy meeting we voiced that very loudly. it runs out at the end of the fiscal year. we didn't get any funding for it anyway, so we are bought in. in other agencies, as far as funding, d.p.h. is the administrator of the grant, and we hope we get some budgetary support as a city to continue this program, because i think it's a difference maker if we continue it. >> the other thing is on your slide 6, the lead participants based on race, what are the dates of this? because i know that -- >> so this -- sorry, to interrupt.

so this is information that was reported out to us at the last policy group meeting, which was on the 27th of january of this year. >> is it based on all the participants in the program? >> no, commissioner, it's a snapshot in time of the individuals who are in the program at that moment, active participants. have completed their intake, are working with case managers to address their different needs. >> and i would ask that sort of moving forward, we are a little more cognizant of the racial issue because the whole tenant of lead was to sort of address racial disparities. and while i appreciate this breakdown based on the race and ethnicity, it's concerning because the arrest rates and the jail population don't coincide with these sort of, the racial makeup in this chart. >> if i could -- >> not just one day in time.

yes. >> i'm sorry, commissioner? >> she wants the numbers for the entire duration of the program, not just a snapshot of january 2020. because i know when we first started the program, that was one of the issues. there were a lot of referrals for nonminorties which didn't jive with the racial makeup of those being booked and arrested and in the local jail. so those two numbers need to make some sense or have some correlation. >> one year, something more than one day. >> i understand what you are asking me for. just to be fair so that you understand what the challenge to that would be, so the administrative component of this in terms of collecting data, that wasn't assigned to the police department. and the department of public health, being the lead in this, for the individuals who had taken that role of capturing this data, so we've asked for it, and what they are telling us

is the challenges when somebody completes their intake, that's when they can record the information. so i can ask them for all the intake information to see what that group is, but i'm not certain if that would even be reinflict-of-of all the -- reflf all the referrals that were made. if i didn't follow through, that data is not collected in regards to gender or race. >> i think they did collect it, and i think the d.a.'s office also had the racial makeup of the referrals. >> okay. >> commissioner dejesus. >> i have about four or five questions or suggestions. so i'm not on the criminal justice system. i'm not that familiar with lead, only when it comes up here. so this time i really paid attention, and i want to ask a couple questions.

when it says -- because i'm like a viewer. when it says social contact and referral portals, just remind me, who are the social contacts? are they like social services? are they community agencies or a mixture of both? >> so social contact, one of the core principles related to social contact, just to give context to this, and i have a direct answer, is whenever lead programs begin, social contacts outpace prebooking and that's because police officers are making decisions and the level of commitment to it increases as they see the success of social contact. so to be eligible for a social contact referral in lead, a police officer has to witness a person engaged in criminal conduct, low level criminal conduct that would be eligible if they were arrested for the same or cited for the same, or they have to have information

from the community, case managers that an individual was so involved. the value of this, especially in the tenderloin with all our foot officers and the density of folks in that neighborhood and the amount of police officers we have in the mission and tenderloin, if they get to know certain individuals who are stuck in this conduct. so they know, and then they are eligible to make that contact. >> so thank you. i didn't realize it was just the police officers social contact. that wasn't clear to me. >> it's like if officer bob, john is always on the street. john hasn't committed crimes but he knows he could benefit. maybe a little asterisk. i also, on the graph, i don't know what page this is where it says percentage lead referrals, there's an abbreviation for s.f.s.o. i don't want to guess. >> san francisco sheriff's department.

>> kind of thing the auditing person said we should have these definitions in here. i was guessing at that. i thought it was something to do with the school. so that's the sheriff. and they can also participate in this lead program? >> yes, they can >> good to know. there on the ethnicity. thank you, commissioner. i want to look at the gender chart. and i think there's a typo here for the male it says 100 percent, and for the femalet percent? those are people? okay. thank you. i was wondering if that was a percentage. and then when we get to analysis, now you may have given this before, evaluation by the california state university of long beach, we may have gotten a copy, i don't recall but i would certainly ask that i get sent a copy. i don't know if other commissioners want this. but it would be nice to have a link either on here that the community can go and look up this evaluation and read it

themselves and have the link on our website for when this is coming up that the community can also see the 130-page evaluation which could help understand the program. and then the definition of hire was so confusing. that might need an asterisk to see it means recidivism at low level. that sounds like a -- what do you call those? professors, i can't remember the word i'm looking for but pie-in-the-sky analysis. and the last one, selection bias. i'm assuming the way i heard you say that, there was no bias due to strategic implementation by the police department. is that what you mean? because it says not an effect. >> if i can come in on that one. selection bias. so one of the things that was

looked at in the evaluation was whether the officers who get the basically make the decision of who they refer to lead, whether there was bias based on behalf of the officer, who got in the lead and who doesn't. so it was really, i think, good news for us that they evaluated -- because of the way that we implemented lead, different from some other cities, for instance, seattle, it was a very small group of officers that started lead. they worked in a specific area, very small, defined area, and i believe it was eight officers, i believe. they made all the decisions as to who got the referral and who didn't. we wrote it out, and we opened it up to anybody working mission or tenderloin. so we had a larger pool of officers. so what they felt is because the way we rolled it out, it minimized a small group of individuals making those decisions which lessens the

possibility of this selection bias. because it's put out. we have a variety of people making decisions. so that was a good thing in terms of -- >> i guess the question that commissioner elias was raising, i was thinking is maybe we should also ask long beach, when they look at bias, do they reconcile the jail population versus ethnicity, black is 41 percent. does it toldhold true when they look at the race -- hold true when they look at the race of who is participating in the program. >> it's not proportional, and i think that speaks to commissioner elias -- >> these are not percentages, they are absolute numbers. >> but still higher on the red column versus the blue versus the jail population. so maybe when we are looking at bias can we also analyze the participants versus the jail population? >> i think that was the goal.

i think when it says selection bias and strategic implementation, when someone is referred to lead it goes into what the commander was saying, it goes before the lead committee, which is comprised. d.a., public defender, d.p.h., the police department. so there are like 20 people in the room, and they talk about each case and whether the person can be a part of lead, if they can't, if they are not eligible. so i think that when they talk about the implementation, like the no bias, that's what they are talking about because all those individuals are in the room to sort of examine the case. >> case by case basis. >> got it. >> that and the pool of officers. because the officers really control -- the officers determine who gets before the other panel. >> i want so thank you for bringing this. i'm kind of a novice to the program, and that's why i had some questions on it. but yeah, if we just send that

130 pages, it will be helpful. >> i can say one last thing if tiffany doesn't throw a pen at me and ask me to leave. one of the things we did do that i've found very valuable was there were different levels of meetings. they had policy committee meetings, but we had parking lot meetings that typically started. and it was myself, tiffany, the public defender, there were a lot of us. we talked about this. we talked about cases and about what was referred to as missed opportunities. and i looked at, i figured approximately 100 cases in total on three occasions to look within the four corners and see was there something missed. so we talked about that, and we definitely have conversations with captains who are looking at arrests every day, every arrest made every day to see if there

was a way that we were assessing our performance and trying to determine if there was a way to improve. >> thank you so much. >> thank you. >> these are good numbers. these are good reports. we are going to go now to the d.p.a. director's report but i'm going to ask you to start with a protocol when we get there. so if we can call that next item. item 2b and we'll fold one into that. >> line item 2b, report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. d.p.a.'s report will be limited to a brief description of d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues made for a future commission meeting. presentation of the d.p.a.'s 2019 first amendment compliance audit of san francisco police department records pursuant to department general order 8.10. >> good evening. so we have this year so far, 82

cases have been opened up. as opposed to 69 the same time last year. we have an uptick in cases and increased caseloads. cases that have been closed this year, we closed 13 cases this year -- 133 cases this year. this time last year we closed 68 cases. cases sustained we are at 7 this year, this time last year we were at 10. for cases that are past the 90-day mark but not at the 3304 deadline, we have 32 cases. 14 of the cases have been told. this time last year we had 27 cases that were past the mark. cases mediated, we have seven cases. this time last year we were at three. i do have, and i'm going to come back to the 21 because i have an update on that. for the mediation, we talked

about that. we've been really active this past month and weeks with our outreach. we participated this month in a group meeting at u.c. hastings with 100 other organizations talking about d.p.a. and the law. on february 7, we attended the black history month. the mayor's office at city hall. and on the tenth, we made a presentation on our mission and function with our budget at the library, that was this week. and on february 10, we also gave a presentation at north beach community center. there are no cases today in our closed session. and the audience in case issues come up that need help or

assistance, i have today with me my chief of staff, investigator and my director for policy. no cases in closed session. so unless there are other questions, i would present the 1421 update. >> before you do that, we have this protocol quarterly report. is this just for us to receive? is there anything we are supposed to do? >> i don't think so. let me bring someone up. >> all right. it just says, the calendar says receive and file, action. and i don't know what action is required. >> good evening. it's a report that is done in combination with the police department as well. so every quarter, there's a discussion as to the document protocol, cases that were complied with within a period of time and there's a quarterly

report. it's historically been on the consent calendar so the commission has an opportunity to review it. if there are issues, they could take it off the calendar and they could discuss points of concern. >> are there any highlights you want to call to our attention? >> no. >> all right. so it will be received. next item, director henderson. >> 1421. if i can bring up my chief of staff to raise some of the issues last week. >> good evening, president hirsch, vice president taylor, commissioners, chief scott, director henderson. my understanding is that commissioner hamasaki wanted a presentation regarding the total numbers of our 1421 files so i'm using the same metrics as when rosenstein presented in november and give you updated totals and

answer any questions you might have. >> before you do that, i'm going to calendar for some time in march or april, a full presentation by the department and the d.p.a. on the 1421 update so we get the most current picture of where you folks are. are you giving us a piece of that now? >> i'm prepared to. and i'm happy to also present again in march or april. i can give you the short rundown and skip the long. >> that's fine. but i would welcome more data so we can actually see what it is back in march or april. >> great. and this is just my understanding from last week's commission. so to date, we have reviewed 2,126 files. we have produced 51 files of those, four were officer-involved shooting cases, which meant that we turned over 12,000 plus pages of discovery just for those four cases. we currently have 42 cases pending production, meaning that they are in one of various

stages, they've been identified for production, and they are at either the first or second level of redactions. included in that number of 42 cases pending production, one is another officer involved shooting which is another 2,000 plus pages that we are preparing to produce. we have 226 files that are pending secondary review, meaning that at a cursory level, they might be disclosable, but we have to pull the files and go through the deeper level to make sure they comply with the statutory requirement. most notably, we worked with the public defender's office in terms of an approach going forward to prioritize their cases, and we identified that their needs and how our system works will work best in a categorical approach, meaning that we are focusing on dishonesty cases right now, in addition to the other cases that are in progress, which are in the g.d.i. and officer-involved shooting categories. so our dishonesty review has

been separated into two levels. in the first level, we did a search in our meta data for misrepresenting the truth. we pulled 61 potentially disclosable cases. we determined that 48 are not qualified for production, either because the data was inaccurate, meaning they weren't really a dishonesty case or sfpd didn't agree with our findings, therefore the cases were not sustained. we found three that we are going to produce. we have enough information that they were sustained as defined by the statute, and ten we don't have enough information on. we have sent a memo to sfpd to see what their information is, and we'll determine whether or not they are producible. the second layer of our dishonesty review is going back to the beginning, because we have refined the search terms that we can use so we are going to be looking for writing a false report, writing an

inaccurate report, falsifying, fabricating or failing to disclose material evidence and start from that same process at the beginning. so we'll review those terms in our data, pull all potentially applicable files, do the deeper level of review, send anything to sfpd if we can't determine if something was sustained and produce what'sable. >> -- what's producible. >> thank you. to not only let the public know where you are in terms of releasing this data. one thing i want to ask is for you to start including in your chief's reports is also the same material d.p.a. is producing is how many 1421 requests you are getting and how many cases year to date you have been able to comply with, because i think that data is very important and gives us a better picture, especially since the department and d.p.a. have received funding for 1421, and the public has

told us that it's sort of, they are frustrated with how slow these documents are being produced. so i think that data should also be provided by the department since d.p.a. is now providing that data. >> i have a question about whether that is weekly. weekly, these things don't change fast enough in my understanding, what i've seen, they don't change fast enough for a weekly report. >> well, i mean d.p.a. is doing weekly reports so i think we should definitely have -- yeah, we should definitely have the department do the same thing. not changing, then it's not changing. >> unchanged. >> so we haven't gotten this specific number weekly, but we have every week since commissioner hamasaki asked for it, we've been saying for example, since our last meeting we disclosed four files. my understanding is that commissioner hamasaki didn't find that helpful because there was no context so that's why we gave the full rundown this week. >> a similar process with the

department. >> and it's obviously whatever the commission wants in terms of frequency of that reporting, we are happy to comply. >> i mean, i apologize for -- i think tonight was helpful because we didn't understand the broader context of everything. so thank you for that. i just have one question. this is based on my lack of familiarity with how they impact d.p.a. so if d.p.a. sustains a finding for dishonesty but the department doesn't agree, then that's not a sustained finding? >> correct. because the interpretation that was reached was that sustained means there has to be an opportunity for appeal, there could be a finding and opportunity for appeal. >> i understand. thank you very much. that's it. >> i'm stuck on that point. something about that just bothers me. >> there was a conversation that

was had with advice from various parties, including the city attorney's office, and that's the policy that we have been operating under. >> all right. so the city attorneys advise you that comports with the statute? >> advice as well as it's part of what is in the 1421 protocol that's been discussed with the commission >> i guess the only way that that would be disclosable then is if it came up on a appeal to the commission? >> committee for appeals. correct. so when d.p.a. sustains a finding, essentially, we are not the finders of fact, we are essentially recommending charges based on our sustained finding. so what we have been advised is that it has to then have a decision, either by the chief or the commission, depending on what level of discipline is imposed in the case, and then the officer has to have an ability to appeal that decision in order for it to be a sustained finding. they don't have to exercise the

opportunity for appeal, but that has to be part of the process. >> so we've had cases come up from the d.p.a. where the department disagrees, and you pursue, and the officer then appeals. >> not what we are talking about. >> why is that different. hang on. i'm asking her. why does that not work? why is that not part of this scenario? >> well, it is. if it goes to the commission then there's a commission finding. so the commission -- so commission or department has to make a finding in order for it to be sustained. >> all right. >> cases don't have facts. >> hang on. i just wanted to ask that in most reports it would be good towards the staffing. i know there was some funding for s.b.-1421 and having staff on board, so that would be good to hear. >> i can give a quick update on that now. so we finally got the funding to bring on board the legal assistance. we finished interviews with

those people last week, and we will be making offers to two legal assistants shortly. that's great. we have one full-time attorney who will be working on sb-1421, another attorney who will be devoting 50 percent of her time to it and a volunteer attorney who is starting in a couple weeks who will be doing 100 percent 1421. >> thank you. anything else from the d.p.a.? next line item, please. >> we have not heard that. i would like to introduce the 810 audit by our award winning director of policy, samr a marion. >> good evening. director of policy at the d.p.a. good evening, commissioners, chief, director henderson,

members of the public, many youth commissioners as well, and then of course sfpd staff. tonight we filed a report which is our first amendment report, so you've been provided that in your materials, and tonight i was just going to summarize the results that -- of that report. the general order 8.10, it requires that the department, that they can conduct a criminal investigation that involves first amendment activities. but there's certain requirements. there needs to be a reasonable suspicion that an individual is planning on engaged in criminal activity that is expected to result in bodily injury or property damage or constitutes a felony misdemeanor hate crime, and there are first amendment activities that are relevant to the criminal investigation. so 8108 laze out those requirements as well as if those requirements are met, then there's a requirement this type of investigation be written up and authorized and signed off by

both the commanding officer of the special investigations division, the deputy chief of investigations and the chief of police. every year, we conduct an audit where our staff go to the special investigations division, we ask them for the particular documents that are required that they keep pursuant to 8.10. so in this year, similar to many other years, we conducted that process. this year our audit results are as follows. sfpd reported to us they had conducted no investigations or undercover activities that were subject to the requirements under 8.10. they reported there were two public records requests made pursuant to 8.10 guidelines and provided us documentation concerning those requests. and that they based on our review of the documents they provided us, we did not find any violations of the 8.10

procedures. we do have two recommendations. one, and this is a recommendation that had been discussed at last police commission, our recommendation is because department general order 8.10 is old, and is part of the cycle to be reviewed, our recommendation is to have a review of 8.0 through a working group which is a part of the what the commission is already authorized. there's just an urgency to move forward with that working group. and our second recommendation, which is one that we made last year as well, is that the training materials concerning 8.10 that the department provides are within the special investigations unit, those materials are quite old. there's a video that's several years old and our recommendation is to update the training video so that it really addresses the broad range of first amendment or activities that are protected under the first amendment and involves training scenarios so officers in the s.i.b. unit as well as anyone else that training would be relevant to

within the police department has an opportunity to really understand the broad range of first amendment activities that now technology really addresses as well and that they have an opportunity to compare their knowledge in those scenarios with 8.10. >> thank you. the working group is planning to reconvene in 2020 and it sounds like the training materials should be part of that discussion. commissioner hamasaki. >> yes. i was just going to say i didn't realize it was, but i worked on 8.10 last year, and so conferred with president hirsch and see where we're at with that, but i would like to get that moving forward as well. >> commissioner dejesus. >> thank you for your report. i would just say on that last page, item 7, where police commission logged examination where the police commission log indicated -- it would be nice to say who the commissioner is,

it's not a secret, and only one of us gets to do that, and i think we should identify the police commissioner who reviews the logs. >> my understanding -- i didn't review this year's logs but in the past it's been a variety of police commissioners. but it's your request we identify -- >> not anymore. there's only one person. >> my apologies. >> right now it's the president. but there has been no activity so there's been no log to review. >> that should be clarified that there's been no review. who is in charge and there's been no review. >> i had no idea. public reading is going to assume all of us. >> actually 8.10 says the president shall appoint a commissioner, and i appointed myself, and that was made public. i'm entitled to appoint myself as well as anybody else. >> the report should reflect that. >> we'll do that. >> okay. thank you. next item.

>> line item 2c, youth commission report. presentation of the omnibus youth commission preliminary priorities for fiscal years 20/21 and 21/22. >> good evening, youth commissioners. >> hello. >> my favorite presentation. >> hello. haven't seen you in a while. >> good evening.

>> are you waiting for the computer? >> i think i'm waiting on the powerpoint thing to go. i don't want to start talking and then it's not up. >> we love a good powerpoint. >> hello. i'm going to start. background information. the youth commission meeting, our role is to advise commissioners and the mayor on issues related to youth. and there's cool people like you all who want to hear us too, so

we do that. the objectives, we passed our omnibus preliminary budget priorities in january. the reason for that was to be able to advocate early in the budget process. civic engagement, transformative justice and land use. i'm the vice-chair of transformative justice and the transformative justice mission, a group of young people that are starting to build cooperative and compassionate relationships with community and eliminate youth incarceration. since police are the people who make arrests, we have to have

relationships with them to, you know, i'm sure you all get it. so the transformative justice priorityies are developmentally comprehensive trainings for youth and justice system agents such as police as well as probation officers and so forth. and community opportunities to be involved in the policing of the communities. this is one of the departments we addressed such as adult probation, juvenile probation, police department, department of police accountability, so forth.

pictures. so we think some of the really important priorities are community visibility, human rights training and in depth community engagement and feedback. we believe there should be mandatory instruction, training for law enforcement officers on youth cognitive development and youth intake transition, know your rights trainings from an equity and trauma-informed lens. there we go.

we also believe that sfpd oversight should have more consistent and timely implementation and response with community-oriented action plans and issues that relate directly to youth, there should be more opportunities for youth to be engaged, you know, reasonable meeting times and even more seats on working groups for youth to have a say in things that involve them such as one my personal experiences. but, hey. all right. we can go to the budget slide. the youth commission strongly urges therefore that youth and case-specific programs and opportunities not be scaled back in advised budget cuts from the mayor's office. there we go.

there's a bunch of contact information there. some of you on the commission actually have my contact information. feel free to e-mail me. i love talking to people. yeah. and i'm the vice-chair of said committee that i mentioned and here is the chair. >> thank you. we do have some questions. commissioner dejesus. >> thank you for sitting through all of this. and thank you for suggesting working groups. i think we should look at some of the working groups, not only the ones that affect youth but others that might be relevant to your input. that's something we should talk about, maybe get input from you, if you know of working groups that you think you should have representation, we can talk about that. that's something you can take back. we have the use of force, we have the journalist one coming up. there's a lot that we have. >> i know that i'm on the biased

policing one. and then there's -- i'm sorry, were you saying something. >> i was about to compliment you and say what a fantastic job you do with the bias working group. you are there for every meeting, and we've put in a lot of hard work, and your input has been really helpful and appreciated, and you have, it's something i know that commissioner elias and i, we have enjoyed, and appreciate your perspective on these things. >> you have great ideas that have actually contributed to the success. >> go ahead. >> so one of the things i want to bring to this commission is it's kind of a double thing. is that on the days that you are here, i'm wondering if we can put you first, if you are just going to make a report to us or advance you so you don't have to sit through the whole thing, but if you are going to stay, the way i envisioned this, if you have any, all the issues that we discussed, if you have any input or any questions or any of the

youth brought up like the issues with the superbowl, they thought there might have been excessive force by the police department, things like that. i always envision that you would have input on some of the things we discuss. if you don't, that's fine but i was hoping you could give us input from the youth's perspective on the issues on a weekly basis. so maybe that's something for the commission to talk about to find a way you can have a question and answer time with the chief or us. so maybe going forward we should discuss that. >> yeah, i think personally and some of the commissioners that know me, i think if given the opportunity, any one of the other commissioners as well, but just speaking for myself, because, you know, i know myself. i can definitely develop opinions. [laughter] if that opportunity is there. >> i would like to give you an opportunity on the schedule, like we just heard this from the

chief, we are going to report back some of the things we heard. i would like input on this. week to week current things that are coming up. so i don't know maybe we'll talk to the president and see if there's a way we can work that out. >> if you want to get together and show that vision out and like e-mail me or d.j., you can text me they know my contact information. >> i'm happy to have your opinion, you and any other youth commissioners here. >> okay. >> who are the individuals with you tonight? >> well, nora is still here. >> are you nora? >> yes >> and austin is with the staff. and then two were here too but they left because it was running late. >> i want to congratulate congra

on receiving the change maker award. i'm looking through where my son goes to school. my son is in the program there. and i was reading this, and i said i think i know that name. and it says works with san francisco youth commission, so congratulations on being recognized for your work and keep up the good work. good to see a c.d.s. graduate up here. that's children's day school. >> what we just discussed, i didn't realize you were here. is that something we can discuss with you, having more input on the commentary that's ongoing when they are at the meeting? >> yeah, i think it's more of a concern about capacity because commissioners already have four meetings every week and youth commission and their committees. our current work with the juvenile hall working group and the blue ribbon mayor's panel, there's only five committee

members. and as well as one additional commissioner of district 11, are 18 and up. >> i don't mean additional meetings, i mean when they are here if they have any input. or if that doesn't work for you. >> i think it's definitely a valid capacity, and seeing what the vision forward. >> chief scott. >> real briefly, president hirsch, i just wanted to thank the commission. i know they also meet with me. this is one of their meetings. and i value those meetings. and nora i believe also got an naacp award as well. i wanted to point that out as well. >> that's right. congratulations. >> so we are inviting a youth commissioner to sit on the workgroup for 7.1 as well. so i want to thank them for that. >> is that the juvenile one? >> yes. >> we were trying to get two of

us on there but apparently it's against the rules. >> we are inviting three other youth as well from outside the youth commission. so we have a good mix of very talented youth. >> i have a question for you on the report. the pages aren't numbered. so it's the reference to the sfpd oversight for more consistent and timely implementation of responses. i'm not sure what that means. could you tell me what that means? it's on the transformative justice committee page. i guess there are a few of them. >> okay. just about, like, community accountability, and, like, being accountable with public requests, of, like, records and anything else like making sure that, like, communication with community is a key point of

sfpd's, what they are trying to do to make sure, like, we have a lot of presentations and we get a lot of questions about how we think that sfpd officers can gain trust back in communities that historically haven't been either trusting for very legitimate reasons, and we think that holding sfpd accountable for having, i don't know, two-bay street of communication between between communities is very important. so that's why that was there. >> i can add to that as well. so kind of reference to some of the working group stuff that we've been doing as well. i think conversation, especially in the working group is around, like, where the police can let the community know what they are doing now to address things, areas where they may have not performed their best. and i think a super important part of that is to not only

listen to the community but actually have a drafted report of some nature that points out what you heard from the community and how that led to new things that are implemented and where you may have made mistakes and why that's leading you to do something different. so for example, saying we had a meeting last month where we talked about this, we went back, looked at it like this and created this idea. we wanted to know how the community feels. we think this will be better to address said issue as opposed to, hey, we are doing something new and great, but never saying, oh, we did something wrong or poorly. so we need to do better. and having that be a more consistent kind of report back. >> thank you. >> in addition to that, this is really built off of our own working relationship with the police department in regards to the m.o.u. with the school

district. we were following along with it, and then numerous hearings came about and then it came down to getting rescheduled at the board of education. so it was just, like, they ended that the m.o.u. did not get adopted by september which is the start of the semester and we will have to wait for another semester to roll it through, knowing that there were numerous community roundtables we were a part of, and it was just a little bit of a letdown. >> okay. thank you all. i appreciate your work. next item, please. >> line item 2d, commission reports. commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. commission president's report, commissioners' reports. >> is there any report by commissioners? >> i have a report. >> you'll have to put your name

up. you're third now. [laughter] vice president taylor. >> yes, in addition to the bias working group meetings that mr. jones referenced which was productive and i think we have great ideas we are exploring. i wanted to highlight attending the black history month event at city hall this year. commissioner brookter is usually with me but he was called out of-of-of town this year. but i'm always really struck and moved by the beauty and just importance of those events, and it always makes me very proud to live here and to be part of this city and this community whenever i see brown voices singing the negro national anthem together. so it was impactful as always. >> commissioner dejesus. >> so the language access group met on tuesday. i was ill tuesday morning, but

you can give a report. it was a very important meeting. they had maggie from the d.h.r. there discussing language certifications. if you can tell us what happened. >> thank you so much, commissioner, for keeping this on the ray dog -- radar. it was a really great to have this presentation by d.h.r. there's a number of hurdles in terms of just working out the mechanics, but essentially we were looking at, and it's been an ongoing issue is is there the opportunity for officers who already have proficiency in languages beyond the core languages, is there the ability to have them be certified so d.h.r., and they've been in discussions about how to get the financing and the details in place so that that can occur. there's also an issue about is there an opportunity for

officers to get certified concerning translation. and again, there's some mechanics that have to be worked out. or is there another kind of resolution that can address an ongoing issue of if a statement is taken by let's say a victim, a witness, a suspect that is in language other than english, is there a way to get that translated immediately so that by the close of, or the end of that officer's watch, that report has been translated, the statement is summarized and included in the police report, and the mechanics of how to do that in the past we believe that language would be able to work with the officer and do that, and it seems that's not possible, so it's another area we are trying to resolve. so there's ongoing discussions, and the hope is that in a month or two we will be able to resolve it and move it forward. the great news is most certainly the department and d.h.r. are committed to be able to test recruits at the police academy, and the hope is to really

institutionalize that and to be able to have that in place is really a positive. >> i guess commissioners, the concern is there are new languages in the bay area. there are new ethnic groups of people, the police department doesn't have certification for that. i would hate something to happen with people from these, speaking these new languages and it falls through the cracks like the bakery thing that happened, misunderstood, misinterpreted, didn't have the right people there to speak. and this keeps dragging on. and it's just that i don't know where the buck stops, and i don't know who is going to sit down and work out these complications, because that's what's going to happen and everybody is going to ask why has it been going on for five years now. so it's important we get these officers certified, that we pay attention to the new languages in our community and we get translation. we don't have a translation ability at this point. is that correct? >> right. there's not a certification for officers. >> so it's a lingering issue and i know it's going to blow up and

they're going to say you have been working on it for four years >> where is it stuck? >> my understanding is it's discussions between the chief's officer and d.h.r. and the ability to get the key parts in place. >> there are a number of issues as ms. marion stated. some of it is working out the lodgist -- logistics. any adds that would cause budgetary additions, so those types of things have to be worked out. >> d.h.r. does the certification. >> so there's some other things we have to work through as well. >> the budget -- >> put your name up. >> maybe what we should do is we should have d.h.r. and the department talk to us about what

the roadblock is and how can we move past that or why we can't move past that. so i am going to ask that we have a report on that so we know what's holding it up because everyone -- it's going to blow up. >> the great thing is there are officers who could be certified. so unlike other cities that might have that challenge, the department really has great officers who are -- who would like to be certified. so that aspect has been taken care of. so absolutely, time is of the essence. the presentation by d.h.r. was positive, and they are wanting to move forward. so, again, i think those are all positive things. >> so they can come here with the department and talk about that and then also talk about what the roadblocks are and see if we can try to figure out a plan to move forward. >> thank you. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you. i would like to ask to agendize

or address -- >> we are not on that. [laughter] >> slow down. >> this is just reporting right now. >> that's why my name went up. >> next item, 2e >> commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you. i would like to call regarding a d.h.r. trainer to address regarding bias in the department. i would like the chief to address that issue at maybe our next meeting. actual e-mail. oh, it's in and out? okay. i think the chief should be given the opportunity to respond. and what i really would like to know so the public knows is what

the department plans to do to address the situation. specifically the issues that are raised in the letter that was provided to the newspaper as well as what bias training officers go through. i think the public really needs to know the trainings that officers receive regarding bias. i know that you, chief, have worked very hard and closely with us in our bias working groups to get the d.g.o. revamped and actually came up with a brilliant concept by proxy which was added to the g.g.o. so i would like to give the department the opportunity to familiarize the public with the training officers receive and the remedial steps the department is going to take to address this situation. >> i think we may have all gotten that e-mail or call today. but it won't be at the next meeting which is going to be a district station meeting. it will have to be the following

month. we'll get that on the agenda. commissioner hamasaki. >> elias just stole my material. [laughter] i got more material, don't worry, president. i got things to talk about. >> that list. >> i was in the lift over here, and commissioners elias and we all got the call, commissioners elias and taylor had some strong statements to say about it. i would like to hear from mr. dante king if you would be willing to come forward. i think this is a big, you know, nobody was happy to get this call today, because i think that's something that has negatively colored this department since before the d.o.j. reforms. and we are all pretty optimistic about the d.o.j. reforms, and it sounds like somebody who is working inside the department

training officers on bias and inclusion, equity, had some real concerns that he expressed to the chief. so i would like to hear from mr. king in one capacity or another. you know, if what we are doing is part of the d.o.j. reforms are not working, then we as a commission, it's something we should look at and figure out a better solution, so i great with commissioner elias in agendizing and i would like to hear from the actual trainer himself. >> the trainer is not in the department, right? the trainer is from d.h.r. >> right. so the other -- well, there's a couple things i would like to agendize. i would like to agendize a discussion that i'm not sure we've had in open session, but we've definitely had in closed

session. which is, and this was i think mentioned by d.p.a. -- i'm not going to say anything about discipline cases, was the issue of, and this came up at the last meeting, when it was stated that there was no sexual assaults findings, and the comments to that was because they would have left the department. and so our discipline city attorney advised us that actually we can continue an investigation even after an officer is terminated. so that, in fact, we are doing our jobs as commissioners, we are ensuring that transparency and accountability are being had as to all cases. and so, you know, i think that it would be remiss of us not to fully investigate these within. and we were given advice before that we were not able to do

that. but i assume that paul, who is the expert in this field, would be able to explain. i think that's a discussion we should have in open session with the public, i'm not talking about any specific cases, then that's something that should be a public discussion, and i would like to calendar that for march. >> before we move on, i think we asked for a letter, a legal opinion, a memo from city attorney, and we haven't gotten that yet. and i would like to get that before we do anything estimate, because i don't know the law -- anything else, because i don't know the law, and it sounded like the city attorney didn't know the law, because they changed their view on it. we got one opinion from one person and another from another person. i want something we can rely on. i consider that to be a confidential memo to us in terms of attorney-client. we are entitled to waive that and have a public session if we

do that as a commission, but i would like to get that letter first. >> yeah, no, i don't have a problem waiting until the memo is complete. i think it should be a public discussion. i think that i just don't think it would reflect well upon us as commissioners if we tried to do something like that which is not necessary to do behind closed doors, behind closed doors. the other issue was the question has been raised about 1421 and closed session. i've asked deputy city attorney cabrera to prepare a memo on that as well. we are keeping him busy. when the memo is done, i think we should have a public discussion about that. i understand some of it is going to be attorney-client. but the public defender's been very out front in this issue in questioning what we can release and what we should release. and so i would like to have a discussion about that when the

time is ripe. and again, but that's dependent on the memo. and we don't know the answer. we are waiting for a memo with law and stuff. my final, yeah, my final, item to agendize in the future for today is i discussed with or raised the issue with president hirsch, chief scott, the director maguire regarding the d.g.o. on deaf and hard of hearing. i asked that to be agendized for today and to have director maguire address why we have not gotten back the copy of the d.g.o. that's within department

now. president hirsch assured me it's in the final stages. so i would like to have the d.g.o. itself on for i'll give them until march 11. and whatever state it is in at that point we can work out the details, but i've asked for it to be agendized for today. i'll add another month to that. but i do want to have it heard on march 11. the reason for having this specific date is because we have to, there's a fair amount of prepation for the community advocates who do need access to certain procedures to allow them to participate in the hearing, and i know they've been asking myself and others to have this on session to give them ample notice so they could be here and we could get the procedures in place to allow them to express their views. so i'm asking that be heard on

march 11. so we can notify the community as well. >> it's already on that agenda. i've already asked it be on that agenda. >> you could have cut me off at the beginning, just said john, we've got this. [laughter] >> i would love to do that a lot, john. it's on the 11th. >> perfect >> i'll let you know in an e-mail when you sent that out, i said it would be on the fourth or 11th and we put it on the 11th. >> sorry about that. >> all right. commissioner dejesus. >> i had a question for you on your report but i was waiting to the end and i got lost in the presentation so i forgot to look at my notes. i understand there was an f.b.i. shooting in san francisco, and i have questions about that. and inquiring minds want to know. when there is that kind of shooting, how does the department handle that? do we do the investigation? do we defer to the f.b.i. to do its own investigation?

exactly how does that work? >> [indiscernible] >> you can tell me now. >> i can be brief. to answer your question directly, so we had a team from the homicide unit respond, we investigated as a shooting in the city, it involves a federal agent. the district attorney's office was consulted. they did roll out a team as well to monitor the investigation. the f.b.i. also rolled out their team, so the f.b.i. conducts their internal and external investigation. this particular -- this happened saturday night in the park district. there's been numerous conversations between myself, the district attorney and f.b.i. representatives on doing what we need to do to make sure that whatever information results from this investigation is shared by all parties that have an interest in it.

and the f.b.i. is going to do a federal investigation on this. and district attorney has to make a decision in terms of what he chooses to do on this as well. but our role is to investigate the shooting. so we don't do any jurisdictionally, it's a cross jurisdictional, because there's a federal jurisdiction because it's their agent. there is, of course, the state charges that the district attorney has a responsibility. and then we investigate that as well. so we don't do any of the administrative piece. the f.b.i. does that, but we are involved in the investigation. and we share information. we are kind of in the middle and we share the information with the involved entities. >> sometimes i am hard of hearing, so during your presentation, i don't think i heard that. so if you said that, i'm sorry, but i think it's significant event in the city and it should be mentioned. >> i did.

and so it did occur, it occurred saturday night. but it is an investigation that's ongoing. and all those discussions and entities that you asked about have been involved in the discussions regarding this. >> so i want to agendize, because we are on the agenda thing is i did talk about the d.h.r., the sfpd to talk about the language certification and translation issue and work out languages to we can frame it so we have something to focus on and maybe give a report. and i guess we have to invite d.h.r. and i don't know if we can dot it -- can do it right now. >> we can do it the other month or so. >> i got the report and i thought it was on for tonight, and it's not. i'm wondering if it's -- >> yes, it is agendized. the department is going to be presenting on it it. i am formulating questions for

this department to answer with respect to that report. so if you have any just let me know. >> do we have a date for the 96a report? i think it's march 5, march 4? >> march 4. >> those are the three things. >> commissioner elias >> i wanted to ask you a question. you said you share information because it's a joint investigation with the feds. but who keeps the evidence? >> the -- we keep some of it. the federal, f.b.i. requested some of it. and it depends on really what the evidence is. so the evidence that they have requested, we are going to furnish that to them, and this is with consultation with the d.a.'s office as well as the f.b.i. leadership. some of the evidence we still have we'll process. but it really, because there are two investigations going, i

think the overall overarching goal is to have an exteedient investigation, so what the f.b.i. told us is that any information or evidence in process, those reports will be shared with sfpd and the's office as well. >> we don't have procedure or policy with respect to how the department handles these sort of investigations when they are sort of joint or shared with with federal agents do we? >> with federal agents it depends on the jurisdiction. their agents are under their jurisdiction. so depending on what the nature of the cause of this is, if it's federal jurisdiction, then they are going to do their investigation. they also do their internal investigation. but to answer your question, there's no m.o.u. between the federal government and the sfpd. we have m.o.u.s with other

agencies. we had a similar situation with a park police officer last year. and we were asked to handle that investigation, because the park police didn't have the resources. the f.b.i., that's a little bit different story. so there was a lot of communication there to make sure everybody was on the same page, and i think that was really important between the district attorney dollars office, the sfpd and me and the federal authorities that have a hand in this. so that was the key to this. is do we have communication. >> the other question is do we have a policy on how cases are referred to f.b.i.? do we have a written policy with respect to that? >> no, in terms of what goes to the f.b.i. or what goes to federal, because it's not just f.b.i. >> right, federal authorities. >> a lot of those decisions are made at the time of charging or depending what the charges are and what the options are, for instance if there's a gun case that has federal jurisdiction,

sometimes we will go to the federal, whatever federal agency that applies there, sometimes that case would be filed at the's office. usually there's communication with those offices to see what's appropriate and if there's any conflict we try to work that out. but it's not a set policy on this case must go to the d.a.'s office, this case must go to federal. it's a fluid situation. we have a crime of violence or whatever, and we want to see that case is prosecuted federally, that's an option for us that we exercise sometimes. but there's no set policy, to answer your question, on that. >> the federal government would come in and deprive the state or local authorities from making that >> no, it doesn't really work like that. i mean, if there's a case that we present to them, they don't just come in and take the case. there's always discussion. so that's not the way it works. >> vice president taylor.

>> yeah, i mean as someone who has, when i was -- i had cases that started as state cases. it wouldn't work like that. if the evidence is housed with sfpd there's no reason for an agency to stake that evidence. that's not how it works. most crimes don't have a federal nexus. a lot of crimes you charge locally, you wouldn't be able to charge federally. there are certain crimes where they have a federal nexus because there's something in the federal criminal statutes that would apply. but it really is dependent on the crime, particular time, and on a case by case basis, i know myself i have, you know, helped, there was a murder in oakland, a mother who lost her kid two days before christmas did not have the capacity to move forward with and that murder would never have been charged if i didn't charge it, not because ofhe