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

>> vice president carter oberstone, i like to take roll. [roll call] >> you have quorum. also here tonight is chief scott from the san francisco police department and paul henderson from department of police accountability chblt >> thank you. please call the first item. >> line item 1, general public comment. the public is welcome to address the commission up to fwhonts on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but within the subject

jurisdiction of the police commission. neither police nor personnel are required to respond to the public but may provide a brief response. call 415-655-0001 and enter access code, 24972279352. comment alternative you may submit pubic all comment e-mail the secretary of the police commission at sfpdcommission @sfgov.org. we will take public comment at the podium and move over to online. go ahead, sir. >> my name is michael putrelis

and i'm here tonight to speak against killer robots. holding a sign which i like to show on sfgovtv if the camera would show me. thank you. i do not see it here-can you police stop the clock please? i can't hear you. i was here for a three hour meeting of the heritage commission and they showed this from the face. i want to show my face and my sign. i think that is a very reasonable request. can you please restart at 2 o'clock. at 2 minutes. thank you very much.

my name is michael putrills holding a sign that says no sfpd killer robots. here to speak against what happened recently with the police department making this request to have a electronically controlled robots that contain explosive. first of all, no one was helped by the fact that the police department and the rules committee did not give the public enough advance notice about what was being discussed in the rules committee and i believe also discussed here in may. the policy you presented didn't get created overnight, and i am not saying that even if you had given us advanced notice and had taken much public comment that i would be in

favor of killer robots. i'm not saying that. i'm saying that this is another example of why i do not trust the sfpd because you have not been transparent about developing this policy. i'm also criticizing the supervisors for not keeping tabs on what was being developed in the rules committee. i have also criticized on social media a number of organizations starting with the aclu, the electronic frontier foundation, all of them were caught short and did not get the word out to the public to show up at meetings, to discuss this policy. i believe that we will have a full public discussion about stopping killer robots and i hope that you will

rescind you request to have them. thank you. >> no other public comment in the room we'll go to webex. good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> commissioners, my name is francisco decosta and today i would like to speak about the homeless situation we have in san francisco. the city has waited for the last minute of the closeing down the tenderloin center to deal with the situation of establishment (inaudible) that used to give (inaudible) to the homeless people. now, as far as the

police department, you all have input into quality of life issues. no human being (inaudible) young adult or elders, those with compromised health, nobody should die on our streets living in a stinking filthy [difficulty hearing speaker] it is a shame that our city charges $50 thousand a year for a tent and we don't pay attention to this, because we have more (inaudible) praying on the homeless rather then helping them. thank you very much. >> thank you caller.

good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> hello, my name is david aronson a resident of district one. the following is a queet from the founder felicia jones. (inaudible) anti-blackness in terms of use of force and (inaudible) i have grown tired talking to the police commission, sfpd and board of supervisors. where is the urgency. if the tables were turned and these stats represented white folks there will be a urgency. (inaudible) took a oath to uphold the law for all san franciscans. i'm tired but not tired enough to quit however tired of beating a deaf horse (inaudible) urgency and therefore (inaudible) recently come to light across social media the san

francisco supervisor dorsey and sfpd want to produce a realty tv show. it is pathetic we have to come and say how grossly out of touch it. this is propaganda and police commission has taken the eye off the ball (inaudible) and now proposing this tv show. san francisco is so eager to proclaim of a example of excellence in policing how the (inaudible) do not care about black san franciscans. if they did there is no way they want to (inaudible) in use of force arrests and traffic stops known as racial profiling. thank you. >> good evening caller, you have minutes. >> my name is susan buckman and volunteer with wealth and

(inaudible) addressing the injustice against black san franciscans is urgent call it what it is anti-blackness of use of force arrest and racial profiling and traffic stops. i have grown tired talking to the police commission, sfpd and board of supervisors. where is the urgency? if the tables were turned and these stats represented white folks i know there will be ujancy. when are you going to take the responsibility. you took a oath to uphold the law for all san franciscans. i'm tired, not tired enough to quit however tired beating a dead horse and tired of concerns falling on death ears. (inaudible) to use killer robots in san francisco. the outrageous move is widely panned by experts and news forums. once again san francisco policing is a national mockery. yesterday the board of

supervisors temporarily walked back that policy and this was just a few days after the 7 anniversary of the murder of mar io woods. why does the sfpd need killer robots (inaudible) brutal and devastating acts with a weapons they already have. why does this policy never discuss by the police commission? did you not know about it? you must have, yet you said nothing in any meeting nor any statement from individual commissioners criticizing the policy. you of all people should know the long violent history of sfpd. by saying nothing you are complisant and done a disservice to san franciscans, especially black san franciscans upon who sfpd uses force as shockenly higher rates. thank you. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> hello, my name is

jean bridging and volunteer with wealth and disparities in the black community. addressing the injustice of black san franciscans is urgent. i'm going to call what it is, anti-blackness and use of force arrest and racial profiling by traffic stops. grown tired to the talking to the commission, sfpd and board of supervisors. where is the urgency. if the tables were turned there will be a urgency. when are you go toog take the responsibility and address the statistics? you took a oath to up hold the law for all san franciscans. i'm tired not tired enough to quit however tired beating a dead horse and falling on deaf ears. we reach out to other sources and therefore sought help from attorney general. wealth disparities in the black community tracked

quarterly data reports by sfpd since 2016. the reports long shown horrific anti-black disparities in use of force arrest and racial profiling. the second porter 2022 report has finally been published. it shows the questionable change thin data. sfpd is reporting the average number of unknown race. this has the effect showing a slight improvement yet a terrible result in anti-blackness and use of force. why does sfpd as the second quarter show double amount of unknown race individuals experiencing use of force versus the prior 6 years? we need answers. sfpd cannot change the way collecting the reporting data to try to avoid scrutiny from the public. we reviewed the data and don't buy it. thank you. >> that is it the end

of public comment. >> thank you. can we call the next item, please? >> line item 2 adoption of minutes action for november 16, 2022. >> can i get a motion? i'm sorry. commissioner yee. >> i got a change on the minutes. item page 4, it is not-commissioner lee is commissioner yee. amend and adopt as such. >> can i get a motion to amend this grievous misspelling in the minutes? >> so moved. >> second. >> members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 2, please approach the podium or press star 3. no public comment. on the

motion- [roll call] >> 6 yeses. line item 3, consent calendar. receive and file action. request to accept donation of $3 thousand from hung on tong society payable to sfpd police foundation to holiday toy drive. >> is there a motion? >> so moved. >> second. >> second. >> members that like to make public comment regarding line 3 consent calendar you can approach the podium or press star 3. there is no public comment. on the

motion- [roll call] you have 6 yeses. line item 4 chief's report discussion. weekly crime trends and public safety concerns (provide an overview of offenses, incidents, or events 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.) >> thank you sergeant youngblood. good evening vice president oberstone, commissioners. executive directorhanderson and public. i'll start the chief report with general crime trends starting with violent crime which is up 7 percent year to date. that is a difference of just over 301 crimes this time last year. property crimes up

4 percent. difference of about 1800 just over 1800 crimes this time last year for total of 5 percent increase in part 1 or serious crimes. in terms of the breakdown of violent crimes homicides are down 2 percent. difference of 1. 52 to 51 this time last year. the sexual assaults up 5 percent, robberies 6 percent, assault up 8 percent and human trafficking down 45 percent. as far as the homicides, we have a clearance rate of 62 percent year to date, and we hope to solve a few other cases by year end that we have promising leads on. looking at gun violence, specifically there have been 169 shooting incident resulting in 192 victims of gun violence. of the homicides, 33 of 51 have been gun related fire arm

related homicides and total we have a total of 159 non fatal victims of gun violence. that compare s to last year is 33 percent decrease in homicide related firearms went from 40 this time last year to 33 year to date. our shooting victims we have a 4 percent decrease in shooting victims from this time last year and 165 last year compared 159. gun violence is down 6 percent. 205 last year, 192 year to date. weapon seizures are consistent with last year. we have 1 percent difference. we recovered 961 firearms year to date. again, that is 1 percent below the 1011 recovered this time last year. of the 961, it total of 163 have been ghost guns. that is 3 more then this time last year. as far as the

other significant insdants, our efforts in the tenderloin ongoing most focus on removing fentanyl and people selling fentanyl from the streets. (inaudible) total narcotic dates. 60.435 gross grams were fentanyl and this is all most double all of 2021, so lot of focus is on removing fentanyl from the streets because of the overdose issue we are having or had in the city the last couple years, and that's where we will continue to focus our narcotic efforts on fentanyl. 493 arrests year to date for sales or possession for sales, and a

total of little over 144 thousand cash seized associated with the narcotic arrests. significant incidents for the week, no homicides to report thankfully. we had a series of school bomb threats. thankfully none have been substantiated that were legitimate bomb threats but it is very very alarming disturbing trend we are seeing in san francisco and other parts of the country and other cities in the region as well. we do not have suspect identified. this is a issue that goes beyond san francisco but we respond to every bomb threat and take seriously because we don't know from the surface and the face of it what the real thing and what is not so we'll continue to go through all our bomb call protocols and work with the school district to make sure there is a appropriate response to these calls, but we have

seen quite a few lately. no fatal traffic collisions to report. one major event that happened over the weekday on 12-3. we had 200 cars in route to san francisco. we learned they were plans to gather downtown for stunt driving known as side-show. our stunt driving response unit was activated. we are able to engage many of these motorist before they were able to set up. they splintered and broke into smaller groups and went all over the city so we had a hard time corralling that but we did respond to that and able to prevent any major side-shows set up for exteneded period of time. as we reported to this commission and the public, the strategy of side-shows is we dont just stop there, if we have identifiable information to identify vehicles and owners, or vehicles and drivers

we do follow up and we do legally seize those vehicles and we seized somewhere in the neighborhood of 40 vehicles year to date or 40 vehicles since we started doing that. on follow-up investigations. i just want to advice people that our engage in the activity particularly in our city it isn't over just because you thought you got away, we will continue to investigate and do everything in our power legally to get your identify and if you're subject to seizure your vehicle will be seized so the stunt driving response unit headed by two lieutenants is 7 day a week operations and we trained officers throt the city for better response so more to follow as we continue to develop strategies. the last thing i add, a good example of the collaboration and one events we were told one of the occupants of one of the stund driving vehicles was as the

vehicle was doing stunts had a rifle out the window. we were able to communicate with the neighboring agency when that vehicle fled the city, the neighbor agencies because of the communication was able to obtain and arrest the individuals and recover the rifle so we are not in this alone and will continue to work with partnering agency to do what we can to curb the stunt driving. the last thing i will report just a update on the (inaudible) we do have a meeting set with our district attorney and the assigned judge in this matter. the meeting with the judge is later in a couple weeks actually, so the mou is still in effect. we have extended the date to january 30 and looking forward to resolving this and then we will resolve the our dpa agreement once we have the da language ironed out and have talked to the judge about this so that is where we are with

the mou. last thing, there is a lot of interest in the ordinance military equipment ordinance. that is a board of supervisor process as stated here today. we are posting our policy on the internet as we always have since may on our website and as the policy changes we post the changes as well. there is a lot of information out there that in my opinion is misinformation and we will continue to work through this process with the board. everything has been passed accept for the clause how we are able to per ordinance use our robots so that is high public interest and will keep informed but that is is a board process working with the board and trying to meet requirements for disclosure. that concludes my report. >> commissioner yee. >> thank you vice

president carter oberstone. first i want to touch bases on the bomb threat. just want to ask whether we have contact the federal to see if they can assist us on that. hopefully we can put some i guess resolve on that so it doesn't happen again. i know it is impact to the schools and the parents and as well as our community, so hope maybe-we have contact them on the federal side. >> we have been in contact with federal partners on that. as a matter of course, bomb threats don't necessarily arise to federal investigation level, however this is a trend that is happening beyond san francisco and we have seen across the country so there is interest. huge interest in determining where these threats are coming from and the source behind them. also, with our

regional partners including our northern california regional intelgence center, which are funded by the federal authorities, they definitely are-we have been in communications with that body as well and that brings all of the participating agencies in northern california to the table in this conversation as well so it is a bigger issue commissioner then san francisco and we really do need to get to the bottom of this. some of these things may not be happening in country, but we will continue to investigate and see if we can find out the source of these threats. >> when a i was thinking atf to see if they can help us bring that down. also, i want to thank i guess for the drop in crime this week compared to last week. violent crime dropping at 19 percent. total violent crime, 19 percent, and total property crime dropping 30 percent, but

overall year to date we are still up there. hopefully we can continue the trend just like the 49ers. thank you very much. >> thank you commissioner. >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you vice president carter oberstone. thank you chief for the update on the mou. it sounds we are hoping it will be ready for commission reconsideration sometime in january since your next meeting will occur while in recess in december? >> yes. >> hope to bring back in january. i want to follow up on the surveillance and live monitoring. i know last time we discussed in november. the department was still finalizing internal procedures and forum that it send to the commission. is that still the case? >> that is the case. we have forms. there is one-a couple miner changes to the forms, but we are try ing to get

it ajund agendized. that is well underway. the forms are printed but there is a couple modifications we need to make. >> it is still the cast (inaudible) the department hasn't utilized the live monitoring yet? >> that is the case, yes. >> as i mentioned i appreciate if it is in a weekly report once utilized so we are aware close to real time as we get them. >> we can do that, yes. >> thank you. that's all. >> commissioner byrne. >> thank you vice president carter oberstone. chief, on the 26 of november the saturday after thanks giving there was a daylight homicide in the tenderloin on leavenworth street. can you update the public because it is rather shocking on a saturday morning. i know it is since

the last meeting. >> on that particular homicide-trying to not mix up with another one. there was shots fired. i thing this was shots fired because there was another that was a fire. shots fired. officers in in the area. made a arrest. it is still under investigation but there is a arrest made and charges filed on that particular case. >> the brazenness of it during the day. >> yes. i will generally say some of the violence we see in the community is going on with the narcotic trades. not that specific incident but a lot of what we see is either fueled by

a person with disorder with use or the actual sale of narcotics and everything associated with that as well. >> any update on any increase on the swing shift patrol in the tenderloin? >> what we have done, we still have our foot beats, the tenderloin foot beats. we adjusted the hours. it isn't a significant increase in deployment but there is increase and matter of fact, i have walked with those officers past midnight. you have done ride-alongs as well. it is challenging. there is definitely a different feel after dark and different feel after the businesses close. there is a lot of activity going on. a lot of illegal activity, but the officers are out there trying to do the best they can. it was good to get out there and see with

my eyes and walk and talk with the officers but there are real challenges. deployment increased some but not significantly on that overnight shift. we do have overtime detail to supplement that and we'll continue to do that. i believe we announced this in commission but there was a change in captains at the tenderloin. captor surgeio chan is the captain and (inaudible) surgeio chan jumped in and getting out there. he was out there with me walking. out there on several occasions. i spend a lot of time in the tenderloin, so we have a lot of work to-do but we will continue at it and adjust deployment as we are able to. >> thank you. >> can we go to public comment, please? >> at this time the public is welcome to make public comment regarding line item 4.

if you like to make public comment approach the podium or press star 3. good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> commissioners, i want to address victims. [difficulty hearing speaker] shootings and killings. the result are victims who don't know where to go to for help. it is time in the year 2022 that we (inaudible) as to what type of help the victims can get. and move forward with experts who can help the victims. psychologists, psychiatrist, social workers, we haven't done this.

at one time we had the mayor office of criminal justice. that was deactivated. the mayor's office got some money and also (inaudible) we need to find out how much money is outsourced and we need a metrix so we can do a needs assessment. (inaudible) they are doing a good job with the sheriff. they can do a good job with the citizens of san francisco. thank you very much. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> hello president and commissioners. my name is nutallia and live in the

innerrichmond a criminal justice and student organizer (inaudible) like to share a anecdote about the issue of pretext stops. it was (inaudible) pulled over-- >> i'm sorry, this is germane to a different topic on the agenda. >> oh, okay. sorry about that. >> if you can call back for item number 8 is it? yeah, item number 8. thank you. >> okay. >> also germane to 7. good point commissioner benedicto. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> my name is susan buckman and i'm with wealth and disparities in the black community. there are no questions for the police chief about the policy for the use of military equipment? it seems impossible that none of you have any curiosity or opinions to express. i do hope

that at some point you involve yourself in this because if this passes by without you saying anything, it is just unbelievable. you are the protection. you are the communication between the public and the police department and yet you are not taking a position on this. no questions for the police chief. no statements. that's unbelievable. thank you. >> that is end of public comment. >> could we call item number 7 out of order? >> line item 7, presentation on the san francisco human rights commission. hrc on the feedback from the traffic stop listening session. discussion. >> welcome dr. davis. >> good evening. thank you so much. i'm here along

with jessica compos and sarah sang from office of racial equity. want to be mind ful of time. we are just trying to-- i do have a slide i will go through and try to be mindful of time because i want to have-we shared the draft report and we do have a copy of a

updated draft report with the plan to have a final on the 14th so we have slides that we will work through. thank you. so, again, really grateful for the opportunity to partner with the police commission and the police department to hold the community input session. i will quickly go over high level feedback we have and that will be included in the actual report. we can go-so, basically just in terms of background and what we found was with regards to the work and part of why you wanted to have this work done was with regards to racial disparities within the traffic stops. i don't think there was denying with the (inaudible) do business in san francisco opposed to how many are being stopped. and so that was the background and what we came into trying to understand the

need for that change. and then we started sharing the proposed traffic stops. wanted conversations with folks and the other thing most meaningful for us was to hear from people their own personal experience and that is the piece that as we had this conversation internally most important for us is to make sure that we dont lose sight of the people appearanceing this and how they felt through the process. looking at the existing as well as the proposed and what the changes would address. so, a couple things that we have gone through high level. we did 19 engagements. that is definitely we have done a lot of different efforts and projects with the police department. the most engagement we have done any one point in time. i say the challenge and thing most disappointing and the

first to say without making it seem like i'm criticizing or disparaging the team at the hrc is that we had more engagement, we didn't necessarily have the same volume of people we had in the past. i would say we had probably more intentional meaningful engagement during that process so able to have the smaller groups. i think something this called for us to do in our department is think about what does success look like with outreach and engagement? having a lot of people in the room doesn't equate to being successful so i want to hear from different voices and are grateful for things we did in sunnyvale and (inaudible) it has called into question for us what it looks like b to be more intentional in the future and clear on the front end about what the numbers look like and what that represents for folks. do you want hundred people thin room and only 10 speak or

30 people in the room that have honest deliberate conversations so that is one piece through the process and 19 engagements we had over 300 people that participated in the process in addition to 200 plus that participated in the survey and just thousands of minutes just in terms of that engagement and that direct involvement and as folks know, the community engagement process is the part most important to me and how we elevate and leverage. the one thing that we heard from folks the main themes we heard are there are a lot of reasons why folks feel we need to look at and think about the traffic stops and be intentional about that and that what exist no longer makes sense to continue with that, and then the other piece is that one of the first meetings we did at a

round table, someone he started crying. he shared this experience being stopped for something that is not a reason you are supposed to stop folks. he was leaving a meeting at the bayview opera house with meeting the da at a meet and greet and leaving that meeting going to meet the da to be more involved in the process he was stopped on the motorcycle because it was too loud and so he talked bet the experience and how demoralizing it was and what he did to warrant that so the idea and feeling folks have is what we don't want to lose sight of. the main themes we have here that we shared out which sarah and jess will go more in detail of the report itself, but just high level some of the themes and the thing i want to highlight and talk about and then challenge the department and commission and know that dpa is doing a lot of work around

this as well, is not focusing solely on the policies but the culture and the spirit in which things are happening. that is the one thing we heard from folks that they are less concerned about-they are grateful and want to see the changes happen, but if the changes happen without a culture shift or building community or without connecting with community and i will say that i don't know there was a way for the police themselves to win in this because folks were mad if you showed up and mad if you didn't, so there is a balance in that space if we are honest and real but think people want to be able to have the hard honest conversation with the police department without the police department trying to justify what is hapage happening just to listen to folks. i want to yield the floor to jessica and sarah. they shared and hopefully you all have a copy of the latest report and we have some out for

the folks in the chambers as well. you can go-i think that was the last one. sarah, do you want to-- >> i want to elevate a little-you have the report. some of the commentary from our community elevating the desire to have more relationship with the police officers in the neighborhood, they do acknowledge that they sometimes feel they are being more just watched rather then wanting to make sure that the police officers engage with them as community members during the community sessions and building that relationship and i do also want to acknowledge the challenge of that because as director davis said, it is hard because some community members want you there and some don't so elevate the desire to engage as community members and to ask for more of a direct

supervision for officers. inconsistency messages of officers when they are stopping and also when they are like follow-ups and then the supervisory role when there is elevated issues that come about. are they having supervision at meetings with their supervisors meeting with them or if there is action taken afterwards. and more detail in page 20 in the report. >> (inaudible) i also like to add that in the public discussion about this not at the listening sessions but in the media and so on online, survey responses-we saw a lot

of polarization. we hear must be this or that but when we look at the history of traffic laws and police departments and how they were created and why they were created we see layering of laws over time and laws that maybe made sense or practices that made since when the car was first invented and maybe roads didn't look the way now, those laws don't necessarily make sense or not effective now and so that was one thing we heard very clearly at the community listening sessions. people look at the list of proposed infractions which the police might stop them and say i didn't know this was illegal, why would the police stop me for this? there was tremendous consensus that people dont want to see officers make traffic stops for reasons that are not related to public safety, especially road safety. a lot of examples people gave were

tinted windows, hanging objects from a mirror, expired registration tags. a lot of people said the way our society punishes equipment and registration policies so a fine makes it expensive and are ironically makes it more difficult for people to fix those problems in a timely way, right? they agree it is important to have a registration. it is important for lights to work but didn't think those were serious enough for officers to stop them for. what was interesting and know some commissioners heard this yourselves in person, sleeping in a car. people were quite surprised this is illegal in city and county of san francisco to not sleep rest or eat in the car between 10 p.m. and 6 a.m. some said we encourage young people in the family to pull over and sleep if they are tired. other people said they had been stopped and searched while they were sleeping in the

car in the middle of a late night workshift so this has serious impacts on folks and a lot suggested the law should be repealed entirely. i wanted to distinguish between the issue of stops that no longer make sense and people being stopped and questioned by police for the race. because both are happening and they have a overlap but there is a dist tinction there. many people said they are stopped and questioned because of the race. we know the department made a lot of efforts to implement a bias free policy, a lot of other protocols but people still said they are stopped questioned and searched for things that were illogical to them, so an instance is having a loud muffler on the motorcycle even though they never modified the motorcycle. having tinted windows even though they were factory

installed tents. driving too slowly too late or in this neighborhood. walking or biking in a way that might have been a infraction but safer at that intersection and commonly done by a lot of people. people said they had been stopped something done by the car in front of them and a lot of people especially black pacific islander residents said they had been stopped for matching a suspect description that didn't match anything but the race and didn't match the rest of the way they looked. people felt it created opportunity for racial harassment or violence from officer jz fear and trauma from the interactions over the years stays with the community. people describing (inaudible) ways that felt dangerous or demeaning. for instance, this

is violation of existing policy. they were not given a reason for the stop before being asked about their parole or probation status. having passengers in the car questioned before the driver was questioned. a lot of maybe tone of voice, (inaudible) how to avoid being racially profiled. one person said an officer told her if you don't want to be stopped you shouldn't have the bumper sticker that says i love the mission. there were people that said they have been detained and searched multiple hours and released with no tickets. required to sit on the sidewalk or lay on the ground even if they don't have a weapon. guns pointed at this even though they didn't have a weapon and what especially stayed with people was when these things happen in front of their children while the children were in the car or when it happens to their

children themselves and those in person at the sessions, i think you would see these experiences were most common among black and pacific islander residents followed by latino and are middle eastern participants. there were some asian participants who experienced unjustified traffic stops and this is where that question of implementation of practice and culture comes in place. many had never been asked about the parole or probation status even if they were under supervision at the time. there was broad broad i say all most unanimously consensus in person that racially discriminatory stops should never be allowed and know the policy you considered earlier in may had a lot of exceptions for reasonable sus (inaudible) allow pretext stops for commercial

vehicles. people said the color of my skin doesn't change whether i'm at work or home and dont want to be racially profiled. there was a sense officers were using reasonable suspicion (inaudible) these are things we would offer to you to take into consideration. maybe two more things i'll highlight is just that people really wanted to see much more frequent monitoring of officer behavior and disparities in traffic stops. i think the original (inaudible) people questioned why this couldn't be done on a daily or weekly bases and that is something we offer to your department. >> i wanted to end or piggy back on a couple things sara

said. first foremost around folks felt strongly not just about the practice and policy and culture, but what's intent so if when we met with the api council what we heard very specifically was if this about license plates not put on or about tinted windows is there a fund or is there something where the police instead of being punitive can be more like why don't you have your license plate on or why do you have the tinted windows or driving with a broken headlight. understanding we shouldn't always assume the worst and that is part of why this back and forth around culture. with regards to sarah's last piece just around the-what were we talking about? the

frequency. i think again we know that is a challenge ongoing for the police department and what data is collected what you do with the data or what system you actually hold the data in, i think that that is something that folks were kind of like as you are doing the quarterly reports a better understanding they felt like if officers were doing it, it would make them be more self--aware of something maybe they didn't know they were not conscious of before. and then the last thing jes. and it was great to have dpa at some of the meetings. the access to information so again what you are collecting how it is shared out. i know that my office gets a quarterly report from or monthly from the police department around what's happening, but folks really had concerns about if you change this policy and folks still violated how will they

know and what will happen if there is violation and how do people partner with police accountability increasing awareness and i know directorhanderson and i are working on that with human rights commission. those were some things folks were more concerned about. access to information. what to do if things are violated and overall just culture shift. we will end there and thank you for your time. >> thank you so much dr. davis, jessica, sarah for the preezentation and justpt to thank hrc for this really incredible undertaking. as dr. davis said this is the most engagement hrc has done for a specific issue, and having attendeded most or nearly all of the community

listening sessions, it was just extremely well run and organized and everyone can attest just how detailed and impressive this report is. just want to thank you all so much on behalf of the commission for the extraordinary work. i just wanted to ask a general question, which is, the community obviously is a (inaudible) people have different views on the same issues. there is clearly some consistent themes that run through as you all pointed out, and as the policy making body it is our responsibility to take all this information you have given us now and compile in the report and help have that help inform the policy making process and just wanted to ask for any input you might have for us as commissioners about how to do justice to all the comments that you all elevated from community members here tonight and how we can make the most use out of the report you put

together? >> i would welcome sarah and jessica to respond. i will tell you that internally some of the challenges that we face not just in this but when we do community meetings in general is that it is really important to be mindful of descenting opinions and being really aware of those in terms how you develop responses. we could have done a better job of talking about how the police view this as a tool for their toolkit or some things so folks could be a little better informed about why there is the debate and i think you have done some level of that engagement with the police department as well. i know we had folks on the calls and in space who also were supportive of it and folks who had fears if you stopped doing this that folks are going to get run over. i think for us, the most important thing and i shared this with the chief

over the years, is i really hope that there is a strategy and what we heard from community, to make sure it is not just a policy that gets written down and that you refer to dgo9.0 whatever without a plan for how to actually address the things we heard the most. and so part of this is humanizing the story and thinking about what that looks like for us to engage. i know the officer in the back was with us in the bayview and the conversation they had with folks at their table was truly impactful. the ability to have the conversation and deeper dive and know the people that left that table speaking with them were like, i have a whole new understanding of this. it didn't necessarily change their viewpoints but it changed how they saw police officers so i just hope that as you do this we can be intentional

not just about the policies but the implementation and how community stays connected and what it looks like. i also love to work you all you are doing trips outside of california and outside san francisco, but what it looks to do some of these in the city conversations, deep dives and to address some of the challenges we saw come up. >> what i might add is, at the office of racial equity we see a lot of policies put forward where people say this is for racial equity, but as the office of racial equity i think we would say it is important to be much more specific about the policy objectives. at the end of the report we actually took the themes we heard from people at those community

sessions and tried to break them down into different things people wanted to see. they want to see it -they want to see changes in the reason for the stop. they don't want to be racially profiled and dont want to be pulled over because something that doesn't make sense because the car and road looks different then a hundred years ago and want officers to comply with policies in the stop and want to be treated with respect and had objective frz the department and communities so we suggest taking each policy and breaking it down. will the policy as a stand alone document address all these things or only certain things and what does that mean, whether is the gap, where do other practices or resources or policies need to be put into place so that we have something holistic for racial justice. >> i just second last question then differ to my

fellow commissioners is, a lot of things raised in the presentation are deeper then traffic stops. it is about people they are singled out on account of race whether they are in the car or somewhere else. one thing for example i heard at a listening session and i think there was another comment raised in the presentation today similar was just that the feeling that officers don't come to the community center to just reach out to the community they are policing to introduce themselves. for example and to meet people. the only engagement that they felt they are getting from law enforcement was a low level stop or some other kind of criminal intervention. just wondering if you can speak to that broader issue about sarah brought this up at the

end of the last comment about what will the policy cover and not cover. the policy is about traffic stops, but i would be just interested to hear thoughts you have about this broader issue about the way our department engages certain communities. >> yeah, i want to be mindful because i don't want to say we are painting the whole department as a challenge because i would say it definitely in certain communities. i can remember in the western addition one was like where is antron. there are certain officers they are like you should teach a class or she should do a workshop. i think are best practice that exist and reside within the department and relationships and again part of this to your point is bigger then pretext stops and i know these debates about how often you move people from a station.

antron has been at the western addition station a while. he has seen babies grow up and has a different relationship so when something happens they are like i know when several insdants happened in that neighborhood, people dont call 911 or call the police station, they call antron and say are you working today. i think that is the thing we got to figure out and i know that because i know i literally have done that. this just happened on whatever street and he negotiates that for the community versus community having to do that. part of this is there are folks in every precinct and every district and every station that have those authentic relationships that we got to figure out not how to clone them but how to have them share how they fostered those relationships and built that space and to be very intentional about that because i think that is

ultimately what folks are talking about. the ability to have somebody be honest and true with you and say hey, you got to get your light fixed or you will get a ticket and not just focus on giving a ticket. i think that that is ultimately what folks want. they want the humanity between community and police officer jz it is happening and we need to recognize and respect that and see how we model that and get more folks to do it. >> thank you so much. commissioner yee. >> thank you very much vice president carter oberstone. just want to thank you cheryl davis. great job on doing this coming out of the changes and i know it is a monumental task, something that needed to be done quite a few-quite a long time ago. for today just want

to ask regarding the outreach. i know you went out to the api community council, but the api community is geared toward the non profit. for me myself i come out of the chinese community association and at least 25 percent are chinese and their concern is public safety and as you change these policies our concern would be what are the impact that we will face and we the seniors or something like that. i know you guys did due diligence and stuff like that. i'm just looking at if you will consider coming out to meet with us in chinatown community as well as throughout the city. we are not just in chinatown, we are in visitation valley, bayview, richmond, sunset so we

need to educate our community before it comes out and we say what happened. why are they not stopping them? cars maybe park and person is sleeping could be in the middle of the block. what do we do? police drive by. i know dpa will get a call and say, officer isn't pulling the guy over. senior is getting assaulted. there isn't a felony, but (inaudible) due to officer stop that. those are some of the questions i have myself and community have. it is good to talk it out where we can meet the low level stops. i agree there is some that need to come off the books too, but again, we need to consider and hear the voices of our community. that's

my outreach to you cheryl and- >> i would just say commissioner, i really appreciate that and as unfortunately for vice chair vice presidentt carter oberstone and commissioner benedicto they heard my frustration the outreach and engagement looked like and i will say in that same token we are very intentional about that, so and understanding that all the communities are not mono lithic and diverse and different opinions depending on being black in the western addition doesn't have the same viewpoint as somebody black in the avenues. understanding that where geography is folks center the different opinions. i say our round table meeting that the human right commission holds has a pretty diverse group of folks across the city. we heard from folks

from the api community in visitation valley as well as chinatown, as well as in the avenues and interesting because some of this is also generational and so definitely heard from some of the younger folks across races and ethnisties but heard from younger folks in the api community that was like i'm telling you from my perspective but my grandmother does not agree with this so we heard very true-not just race ethnicity and geography, also age within the context of how we unpack this. i think we didn't get to unpack it all in the way we want to. i'm of the age now where i don't want people asking how old i am, but we didn't ask people their age and unpack and are do all that but that is something for outreach in the future we want to do and i will say totally i hear you on that

front. did have one meeting in chinatown but it was a very different mix of folks. understanding that as we do this the diversity within communities as well. >> yeah. again, if you can come out outreach and educate that would be great. i can bring them together for you. old, young. that's what we like to do and make sure we are all in this together. also, just to let you know i have been stopped many times taillights and i feel that pain too. >> norman fang gave us a story being stop in the height when he had long hair. >> thank you. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you vice president

carter oberstone. community and public, chief and dr. davis, thank you so much for your diligent work and this is (inaudible) i believe that there was another person in the report i read also the bigger piece and i had noticed and happy to hear that you are in conversations with the dpa director henderson to discuss how to obtain more participation in the reporting process because a lot of what we are hearing obviously is incidents that happen that are sometimes not reported and i think one of your slides or one of those in the reading i did you indicated there was a lot of lack of understanding for how to report, where to report or that there was a

entity someone can file a complaint in a anonymous or confidential manner. were there recommendations jen rated to improve outreach efforts and the distribution of those processes to the community? >> i'm going to differ to sarah to see if there are specifics but i know dpa was in meetings with us and they got direct feedback so maybe in the future director henderson can share information but they got feedback from people that said can you do xyz and then we definitely had-we have been talking about staffing and sharing a staff person or the funding for that across the two departments, but definitely folks are like more workshops, more in community and i think we were asked for know your rights material s, so to put that together. the other thing we did this time

around we want to do more of and dpa has already to some degree, what does it look to work with community members to be the person that shares that information. so, less of us going in as the bureaucrats saying this is what is happening and more kind of deputizing community who can translate it in a way that is more digestible. >> commissioner if i can help answer that question because the feedback from staff that participated in some of the hearings one of the great specific direct conversations and input was a suggestion specifically because we have the evidence shows we have race disparities in black and brown communities. maybe putting on the tickets a way to contact dpa so people can see and follow up individually when they have experiences was a great suggestion. i don't know if it is in here but i

wanted to articulate feedback coming from community how to address having people understand and know what to do if they felt they had been stopped obtained or ticketed inappropriately. >> thank you that is really important and glad that dialogue will be ongoing process. my next question, because you spoke to- >> one moment. sarah were you going to add something to that? >> i was go toog say that is what it was. people wanted information about dpa during the stop to the public we know as the city and county we are all different departments but to them we are one entity so it doesn't make sense to them to have different sources of information even though your right workshops the public defender does those. it doesn't make sense to people to go through one department and not have departments come together to provide a unified space on that. >> that makes complete

sense. maybe a portal everyone can access (inaudible) or website. thank you. the other question i had, because you have unraveled a lot and it sounds like the spaces, the stories were palpable. the impact of the trauma, the impact of those interactions that lead to unfortunate consequence to community members can (inaudible) engage and to be put into the criminal justice system. were there any recommendations for how to improve the let's say engagement to create spaces for reconsideration or improve the communication? i think i heard more then a few times that and it has been my experience working with communities impacted by the

crimial justice system that a lot of people-colored communities is only (inaudible) with the department is sometimes during one of these stops. were there any recommend ations you can share what the community members were recommending to improve those communications spaces? >> couple things came up and think some may be practices that are still in place but folks were not sure and it is back to how the information is shared and commissioner benedicto may remember. one was specifically around-i don't know if this still happens but that it used to be that community members had the ability to go into the stations especially when there was a rotation or when there were new group that was graduating from the academy that was something that a lot of folks from the mission, the western addition and bayview mentioned

specifically. they remembered going in, meeting the police officers, able to connect and it officers do a walkdown the corridors and meet folks in that space and build those relationships. that was a specific folks were like what happened to that thing they used to do where we used to and might be something that still happens, but the folks are disconnected from it, so how we make sure when you have this kind of come meet your officer and i know back in the day sf safe used to do coffee with a cop or do reading time and the police officers would go to the different neighborhood centers and read to young people so folks were like we need to do more of that just seeing each other and community and building that relationship. that those are the two concrete ones i remember that came up. >> thank you. my last question will be for the chief. i know you have also attended

or received reports and summaries from these conversations chief. are there ways that some of this feedback, is there a structure to incorporate the feedback collected into the upcoming revisions of the community policing plans? because i think a lot of what we are speaking to is exposure in positive spaces and i know that foot patrols are one of those things that constantly or are expected and the foot patrols are not (inaudible) we need them on mission street, down 24th street corridor, so have there been any new strategies or conversations that the department leadership level to begin to introduce some of the recommendations that you believe or just discussion about how to address the concerns the community has

been expressing? >> yes there was has and it was good for us to be at the sessions. there were members of the command staff including myself at a lot at many of the sessions. one of the things with our community policing strategy that we currently have in existence, many of the things mentioned are still happening. where we need to get better and have to get better is getting people to engage with us. getting people to trust this process, trust us enough to have engagements. coffee with cop, good program, never stopped, still going on. some of the community engagement events the bigger events and smaller events, it's getting the people out so we can have these conversations and for our patrol officers it is getting patrol officers opportunities to engage with community members outside of a

ciotic situation. that's where we struggle the most in my opinion and it isn't patrol officers are resistant to do community policing activities, because they are not by in large, but we have to carve out time for them to do that and that has been a struggle with us. i think the plans can always be improved in terms of some feedback we have gotten, but one meeting come to mind. it was in hunter's opponent point and there was notification that meeting was going to happen and people from the community who i stood and talked to outside of the meeting did not come in to participate. there is comments made in the session from some people in the meeting like where are the people who live in the community. we are outside shaking hands and saying hi, but there was not a lot of interest to come in the meeting and engage in the

process. there is where our work needs to be done. people need to be feel comfortable enough to be in the conversations and in the environment and sit down and talk with us and some things we are doing to try to get at that including the trip s we are taking, i think they will build community and build bridges, but we have to keep going and take the feedback and try to put it into action. >> thank you. this is my last comment on the item: i also know that (inaudible) that opportunity to engage with officers in the non hiarchical study without the badges and guns was very helpful having a heartfelt conversation that needed to be had and strongly believe we don't necessarily solely have to travel out of

the state to have those spaces so i strongly encourage as we are working on expanding the understanding of the impacts of profiling and historicalisms in the systems we all work within, we can have the conversations on a ongoing basis in the city, because i think that they would be productive spaces to be able to for the members of the department to hear from the community outside of these targeted conversations that are always going to be loaded because of the context. creating holistic spaces whether it is police line-up or those members coming out to basketball game, those are positive engagement strategies i think we love for the department to engage in and i know that is going to be part of the process how we

actually define what those community building activities look like and are and so i hope that when we are engaging in that process that yes we have more members from the community participate and voice their opinions but i strongly encourage the department also create these spaces where the members of the (inaudible) can be humanized because i think people will still perceive the department when there are the tools of the trade in place that creates a barrier. i will encourage that we continue to build those spaces that don't necessarily solely deal with these challenging topics that bring up historical trauma insdants and historical trauma feelings. thank you for your time. thank you for your presentation dr. davis. >> thank you. >> just before i move to the next commissioner, did want to give a shout out to

lashawn walker the community member who made the suggestion to print dpa information on the back of the tickets. also thought it was a great idea. commissioner benedicto. >> thank you so much. i think a lot of questions have answered. i just want to echo what vice president oberstone said to express the commission tremendous gratitude to hrc, to dr. davis, (inaudible) all hrc team and volunteers and program staff that helped make this outreach realty. i think it can't be understated how comprehensive 19 interactions-first time we a stand alone survey up for the duration of the process. some of the events were stand alone events, some piggy backing on national night out.

some (inaudible) just the breath and depth of outreach is extraordinary and think given the commission tremendous information. my colleagues reviewed it. i encourage members of the public interested in this subject encourage members of the press covering the story to read the report. it is valuable and for me underscores the status quo we are in right now and the profound responsibility as the policy making body of this department that we have to do something to address the harms that these disparities inflict on our community. really do thank hrc for making that very clear and putting faces and names to those many stories. thank you again. >> director henderson.

>> i just wanted to thank you guys for making the presentation tonight. also specifically for being intentional about addressing both the neighborhoods in san francisco that are disproportionately effected by the race disparities in the stops and addressing race specifically. i think it is one thing we don't do often enough so i want to call out to acknowledge especially in this conversation because i think it plays such a important role and didn't want it not said. the other thing i wanted to capitalize on and so glad this was part of the presentation was focusing on the data to make sure that it was accurate that not just it was collected but it would be analyzed and transparent in terms how the information gets turned over to the other agencies that can use the information as well as being shared back with

there community. the same communities paying taxes for the services anyway so them having access to the data is really important. i also appreciated the reference to having evidence based narratives for people talking about their real experiences throughout this entire process. i do believe that being able to communicate in this way and having have these tough stones and conversations with the hrc with the police department with dpa and other city agencies makes a difference and people feel heard and seen especially when we come to them. it isn't lost of me many of the people i think you engaged in throughout this entire process were not necessarily the same people that get to come to the table for the working groups and so having a active component with hrc reaching out with intentionality does make a difference and moving the conversation along towards action i think will be more palatable to a broader audience because they participated in it

and had conversation to understand it a little bit better. just i think these are all really good things but i didn't want them lost on the conversation. my final question was whether or not this document that we reference we have seen is this available online because if it is not, i am happy to publish on the dpa website as well to make-if that helps more people to see it. and, the follow-up idea i had-we have been talking with hrc about doing drug funding and outreach. maybe this is one of the things that would work well in the community to have an institutionalized practice of outreach updating these type of policies regularly with specific communities and disenfranchised communities in the cities for folks that are busy and can't come to police commission or watch police commission but can have a regular update

and community centers or something other then coming into a police station to their community engagement to have these type of conversations. i just know from the feedback we got from the community how meaningful the conversation have been and being able to continue that in a way and think commissioner yee was talking about it, other communities that wanted this type engagement could be something that is helpful as well. that's it. i just wanted to make those comments. >> this will be on the hrc website tomorrow but welcome the ability to share and sure the police department will post it. and then i love the idea about being in community and intentional and consistent so we'll welcome the opportunity to continue that conversation with you. >> commissioner walker.

>> thank you doctor davis for this report and for the effort of you and your staff and being part of thes conversation. also dpa and also the chief and the commissioners who really have been forwarding this look at the dgo. one of the things that struck me really meaningfully is your including the issue of changing the culture. as separate from the rules and regulations and whether you enforce them or not or pull people over. that's it. i attended one of the listening sessions and that was really it. that is sort of at the core of the community policing that we need. it it's-we all sort of agree with that. we also i think all agree on the need to change that culture and so

one question i have is as we were talking-as you were talking with folks in this process, was the discussion about how to resolve it? it sounds like it is more-it was less about not enforcing the rules as it was in how to enforce them. how we engage when we enforce because i feel like one thing i'm hearing a lot of is the need to communicate and share solutions not just come across punitive in this process and i totally agree, i think the answer here is we need to have supportive programs to help people fix their cars. it is expensive. we need to have a more public access to challenging tickets and understanding what the rules are and the opportunity for the officers to reinforce that community

connection. i think that as i have been looking at this in the different iterations of the draft and the proposal, we are also really working in a environment where there is a lot of different people on the streets now helping keep the streets safe. we have our police officers, we have our patrols, the retired folks, we have the potential of private security interfacing and all these districts as well as the ambassadors and alchemy groups and having information about where to go for complaints and where to go for help. creating like focusing on is there grants available and that type of stuff because it seems to me this is a opportunity for better connection rather then stopping all connection. not pulling people over, but finding a way to

better resolve those. >> i think there's a lot to unpack in that. there's like how we build that how we do that. i was thinking as you were talking and chief talking about the folks that didn't come inside and those folks like i can remember very plainly somebody who is older talking to a officer about when they were both younger and he was like i remember when you used to chase me through public housing but you never pulled a gun on me. you needed to chase me, you didn't need to shoot me. that level of conversation and how people engage with each other, i don't know how we do that authentically. i think is that about being in community spaces because it can't be sourced in the building because the folks are not go ing to come are not go toog come. sometimes the folks who don't want to come inside

are more conservative in their views and more punitive what they think should be happening so how we bridge because this is the education piece. sometimes folks who have been through the system it is all they know they are like i got in trouble you should get in trouble. there are consequences for actions and the assumption folks doing wrong and that is education that needs to happen has to happen on both sides and if we do this in a way we teach the police how to be better officers and teach the community how not to be bad people if we do it how to get to know each other and understand nobody wants to live in a space where they are not safe. no one wants to function in a place where they are threatened because of how they look. i think that-again, i know that i feel maybe 4 or 5 years ago we were having more of these conversation jz tell you the key has been for me when we do this in young

people. i did not get to go to the session where you had more young people but the energy vibe and invasion is better when we sit in a space with high school and college age folks who are like, why do we do it this way because they are--they are nod mired down in the tradition. a lot of rambling to say i have no idea. >> it is also on top of that, it is to piggy back on what commissioner yee was saying, senior citizens and disabled folks especially around sidewalk sharing, i think we have a problem with that, and i am worried that a messaging we are not enforcing those things might make it worse. i think in all of these cases whatever the solution that we all discuss together is, the narrative is vital. we dont want to misstate what

we are doing and instead of saying not enforcing we say something different. >> i think what you should focus on is less around not enforcing but working on is not discriminating. ultimately what we heard from folks is my skin color should not be why you stopped me and that you hide it under something else so i think that is ultimately the struggle because we had this thing that goes well i didn't stop because you are black, i stopped because of this but the truth it is hard to prove discrimination and so as we have this battle that's the piece we have to address is it is easy to hide racist acts in the name of safety. we are seeing that happen and i just like it is hard balance to find, but we got to work through it. >> absolutely. absolutely. thank you again.

>> chief scott. >> i just want to make a comment to commissioner walker. dr. davis mentioned this. it is one thing to be in the same room and same space and some of our community engagement events are that there isn't really dialogue happening. what i will say is this and what we are trying to create through our community policing strategies is just that, dialogue where we can actually talk. i will speak because i have been there. to be in a room and yelled out, sometimes we deserve to be yelled out and we sit and listen and what we should do. but if you want engagement, officers have to be able to talk as well and have a space to talk where they feel safe to talk and that is a challenge. if we get to that space where both parties both sides have a space to talk and can be seen as human those type of engagements are

very very effective and dr. davis when i first got here i think those are the type of engagements that we were having with your groups and so we have some of the answers. we have to create the ways to do it because that is what works. can't sit and yell at a officer and expects to have engagement and officers can't (inaudible) we have to see each other as human beings and have a safe place to talk to do that. >> agreed. >> i think those are all the questions. thank you so much. sergeant can we go to public comment. >> members that like to make public comment regarding line item 7 approach the podium or press star 3. >> my name is carl (inaudible) and i just want to congratulate you for effectively legalizing having busted

taillights in the fog. having broken non functioning headlights. having bad turn signals. i think that will really improve safety. more seriously, while i think we have valuable information from dr. davis and her team, i think the outreach design was terrible. there is no evidence of outreach to 2/3 of the city. all the meetings were in a certain part of the city. no neighborhood associations or home owner associations. i have seen though evident seniors citizen groups were invited. where the community police advisory boards invited? are victim right groups like ours invited? you need to reach out to the whole city and not ignore in order to come to one conclusion. the planning commission has a wonderful list the west side north and south

that it looks like you dont care about our lived experience. dr. dives noted a lault ofitialues not solved by eliminated traffic enforcement and think commissioner walker also noted that. improve communication better information more contact with officers and engagement. if you work on recruiting as a commission recruiting and retaining more officers, we have more officers available for that kind of community engagement. better training and supervision. treating respect. you get that through training and supervision not through change the rules. someone asked why don't you ask question. why isn't your registration up to date or why is your taillight busted? that is because- >> thank you, sir.

>> two minutes is tough because you dont know who i am. i'm patricia (inaudible) head of 22 neighborhood merchant association and never heard of the study. i think the study they have done so far is pretty good but there are other neighborhoods in the whole city that should be worked on. none of you know this accept deborah. i had a at risk job training program for 30 years. asian hispanic african americans and caucasians. my first one is a police officer. so, i know some things that all of you really need to know in order to study this, and i know there is a lot of things people do not understand about how you verbiage something to somebody. you can say i'm going to town and one person nationality take

it one way and another take it it is inflection. there is a lot of things that need to be done and studied. whateme i'm working on is we had two asian photographers beaten up. we had african americans and caucasians had music stolen and a child have fentanyl, middle eastern and have a meeting tomorrow night and to get the parties of this city and hierarchy of the city-chief scott isn't coming and we have a wonderful situation where our group walks the neighborhood, we know the neighborhood and we dont yell. we sit down and have discussions. and i want to for my next one if chief scott can't come to this one, i demand he comes to the

next one. this one is extremely important. i have lot of people upset and had to call it during christmas. you know if i did that it was important. it has been like pulling teeth. >> thank you, ma'am. >> caller you have two minutes. >> i didn't raise my hand. >> i'll be quick. i'm here to oppose the revised draft of the general traffic enforcement order. my name is jean day, i live and work in soma, a tech worker. i see it from a soma perspective. at a time when san francisco is trying to attract more people to

downtown core, shoppers and workers my colleagues who don't want to come back to work feel it is extremely unproductive to make the area less safe and ignore traffic crime and worse the optics of having the public find out that we are ignoring all these kinds of traffic crimes. i don't want the traffic crime stops to be biased and think you discussed far more and better solutions tonight then just to say let's stop the stops all together. (inaudible) as a pedestrian i know i'm safer if i make eye contact with the driver, similarly for loud pipes. if i'm woken in the middle of the night every day in a week and know on my street hundred more people are woken up in the middle of the night, people with low income housing, people

in fancy housing, it effects everyone in the city not able to enforce these laws. thank you. >> this is julie trong calling from bar association of saf and calling as someone involved in my (inaudible) i mainly want to give a big shout out to dr. davis for the amazing work she has done and i want to underscore the importance of what the strategy is going forward. as some know i started working with our department by first working with the oakland police department and dr. everheart and what i learned from her work and from oakland work is that we need evidence based best practices and when officers understand and when the community

understand that we are not getting our bang for the buck on these stops and officers time can be spent doing ort things i think we have a better understanding. just having general order stating this is the rule you won't stop without having buy in from the officers and understanding from the community i think is mistake and hope we have dr. everheart on bord to do the work with because that what changed the mind and hearts of the officers in oakland when they understood what this data looked like because they believed they were doing the right thing. they believed this was a good thing and it was creating greater problems with the community while other crime solving problems were going unmet. i would encourage us to really consider bringing in an outside person like dr. everheart to help us collect this data, analyze the data, interpret it and direct to our next steps.

thank you. >> good evening you have two minutes. >> hello, can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay. i'm (inaudible) over 10 years in the city. i live in the city. my office is located in the city. i do have excellent reviews, different then some of the people sitting in this commission, and my (inaudible) vulnerable people. the people that speak like me when a accent that you are listening now, we want to be able to call the police and that the (inaudible) we don't want if we are committing crimes we are not

obeying the rules that we get (inaudible) little brown people. no. we are capable people. we know the difference between right and wrong. we don't need you people making decisions for us to tell us it is up to you. if you are grown and stopped it is because you are brown. no. or because you are black. no. or because you are yellow. no. or because you are (inaudible) no. crime is (inaudible) you cannot keep doing what you are doing because the (inaudible) in city official is our lowest point. like the other commission of the (inaudible)

beyond comprehension of rational human beings. you guys are there to protect us, to help us, not to be (inaudible) have more people of color-- >> thank you caller. >> paul aaron. just confine myself the comments to the last presentation. i think the hrc has done valuable work. to the extent there will be additional outreach picking up on comments from 2 of the commissioners this evening rfx there is additional outreach i think it is essential the public safety element be brought in. the hrc as competent as it and professional as it is does not the legal authority, the remit or the accountability for public safety in the city nor

does it necessarily have the expertise and to the extent that this is a issue that will be addressed as indeed as you some may know from reading my too many materials, i think it should be. if something that needs to be more clearly addressed, and if that doesn't happen all you have seen is one side of the equation. as important as that side of the equation is, that is to say the interaction with police officers you haven't seen the interaction with motor vehicles, that is to say the public safety element and to the extent the public safety element is to be looked at further and public comment to be invited perhaps you should consider using additional resources for that additional expertise in the city to engage with that particular process.

thank you. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. caller you have 2 minutes. >> this is david aronson. i attendeded the one at clyde. thank you for your work. this is not just about policy it is about having sfpd interturnlize and understand the actions have on communities they serve. (inaudible) is key. with focus on this i expect the policy to only be adopted on paper andt noin spirit. i expect

subverted by officers who did not acknowledge believe or understand the devastating impact policing has on marginalized communities. in particular the black community by sfpd numbers in quarter 2 were stopped 7 times the rate of white people. that is worse then quarter before. quigz r commissioner yee brought up public safety. i agree public safety is a issue but a different perspective. it should be considered [speaker speaking too fast] that is a clear public health and safety issue and we need to address it. i did not see comment from the listening session i attended reflected in the draft of it dgo. people in my group made specific recommendations. i think the public deserves to see what the community comments were and were or not adopted.

thank you. >> you have two minutes. >> yes. my name is bill holtsman, (inaudible) community group located above the castro. we are concerned about public safety in this proposal but in 2 minutes i will focus on two important problems. case in point section a7. failure to signal lane change or turn. this is just dangerous. when you enter a 4 way stop you need to know if another car is going to turn in front of you and how do you know? a turn signal. when you are a pedestrian and car is doing a right turn on red shouldn't you get a warning? i lived in san francisco 30 years pedestrian bike rider and driver and all cases communication is critical and the best tool we have is a turn signal. the proposal

takes direct aim at the city much valued vision zero policy which is designed to reduce trafening fatalities. i also like the point out section 9 talks ticketing bikes that endanger cars scooters and other bike but there is no reference to vulnerable pedestrians. this has to be oversight and needs to be fixed ed. does the police commission have the right to ignore california law on the books since the 1950? has the city attorney signed off on this proposal and california attorney general office (inaudible) bottom line, this proposal needs to be put on hold and revised. thank you. >> caller you have two minutes. >> thank you. this is a very disappointing study. i ask that you discount the findings. it is mostly

anecdotal. (inaudible) this should have been done by partial and independent organization. it is ludicrous to assume that people of a certain race or population commit crime and infraction to the percentage of their representation in the population. (inaudible) whether the racial breakdown is from citizens who live in san francisco the bay area california or the nation. how can you compare? as a pedestrian who is nearly killed by a car who had tinted window s and the driver couldn't see me, i want the law enforced. the car owner who was hit by uninsured motorist with mow registration and insurance and paid thousand of dollars for repairs of my own medical bills i want the law enforced. as a owner of the car who catalytic converted is stolen twice in the city, a security

camera could not identify a get away car because they had no front license plate, i want the law enforced. not knowing a law is not an excuse to violate it. police stop making san francisco a haven for criminals and (inaudible) finally this is a plea to the police officers who are listening. whatever happens tonight please enforce laws to make us more safe. for example, the previous testifier talked about unsafe lane change, no longer allowed to do that please site for dangerous driver that has higher crimes. please make my life and safety priority and the whims of people who-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> calling to oppose the plan

to reduce traffic enforcement by police. you concern for the concept of pretext stops is valid but a stop for a violation it seems you are working on assumption of pretext versus evidence of pretext which i know is hard to determine, but they are making legitimate traffic stops. failing to signal (inaudible) to keep safe on the roads. (inaudible) the main most important reason why this commission cannot be considering this plan is because i think it is a huge over reach of your authority. you are not legislators and can not make or unmake the law. committing the violations is illegal but if you ban police officers enforcing them you are making them legal and that is a attempt to by-pass the legislative process and try to make certain violations that are illegal legal. it is also just abuse of your position. while bias traffic stops is a real problem that must

be addressed the over reach of authority isn't the answer and might put officers in a precarious legal ethical position because they are sworn to up hold the laws you tell not to enforcement it isn't the role of it the commission to decide what laws are and are not enforced and certainly not your role to struct police officers not to what they took a oath to do which is enforce the law and i love what commissioner walker was saying because the fact of the matter is if it is something that economic issue for someone let's have a different way solving the problem. in terms of culture, our board of supervisors and you commissioners generally are very anti-police so how are the police supposed to-we can't get people to work here and be a part of the community. we don't pay them enough so the culture has to start with you guys. making the police officers want to stay here and be a part of the community and feel comfortable policing. i

just want to-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. caller, you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) >> good evening caller, you have 2 minutes. >> i'm calling as mission district resident and public defender in the san francisco public defender office. this is a issue near and dear to my heart because i represent the people (inaudible) i will never get pulled over for the reason officers get my clients pulled over. thank you for the presentation. the previous district attorney implemented a policy declining prosecute and file contra ban charges and

pretext stop cases because it is racist and unfair and does not promote public safety and your own experts reported to you directly. i saw the presentation a few weeks ago. (inaudible) skyrocketing pretext stop cases and have to tell you we need this policy from the commission more then ever because bias and frankly racist officers are taking advantsage of the new touch on crime da. i feel the need to point out the racial justice act of 2020address racial bias all levels of the system and i'm filing motions in the cases because it is clear racial bias is at the root of the stops. i have clients detained for jaywalking, riding a bike without a (inaudible) frankly i don't think the proposed policy goes far enough now. (inaudible) i implore you to be bold be brave, pass a strong

policy to put a stop to this bias racist policing that does not reduce crime waste taxpayer resources and experts have said (inaudible) encourage the white people to respond a day at 850 bryant and watch black and brown men change in court because they were targeted by such policies face unfair consequences for poverty. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> yes, my (inaudible) participated as a private citizen in community oriented policing strategy response to the doj and more recent sfpd staffing task force. i'm in favor of the proposed changes to 9.01 especially in the current environment

for a variety of reasons. while sfpd is continuing its unconscious bias training and change the hiring practices, this is a long-term process. the data presented in this and prior meetings demonstrate stops are rated towards people of color. therefore change for these few infractions is the right direction to make for a more immediate change. number 2, given the staffing challenges that the sfpd has, we need to shift the activity so they focus on responding to the highest priority crimes using specialized officers. ticketing and warning for infractions identified in 9.01 can be handled differently by non sworn personnel. this should not be intended as non-enforcement of those infractions, but rather a

change in the engagement process for the sfpd. as well as maintaining public safety and insuring that remains paramount. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. my name is linda and i just like to (inaudible) i got an e-mail saying that-i'm worried about the public safety. we have a problem in san francisco right now and we have a problem we dont have enough police. i don't feel safe and i don't understand why we would implement something like this. it doesn't make sense. i was just at a (inaudible) and everybody was complaining about the fact there is no enforcement no traffic enforcement and that it is dangerous. i don't understand where the balance is. i do understand what you're saying but how can you

eliminate that? it is against the law. we have laws we have to try to actually obtain and right now we are living in a lawless city. i dont to be living like that. i think we need to think about this and take a look at what you think you want to take out. you just need to redo the proposed general order of 9.01 and think people should be safe. that should be your number one priority not racial bias. people just need to be safeism we live in a big city. if we dont feel safe we cannot do anything else in the city. that is the number one basic thing that you are required to provide for us. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> thank you. my name

is lily (inaudible) i live in the mission district of san francisco and community resource initiative. i'm asking to adopt a comprehensive policy that requires more data and transparency and ends pretext stops in san francisco. from 2016-2021 nationally police officers killed 400 unarmed drivers and passengers. many stops started with common trafening violation. black drivers over represented among killed. san francisco mirrors the state in nation in policing communities of color with pretext stops. 2021sfpd conducted 27 thousand stops that result in 6 thousand (inaudible) this isn't issue having to choose a side. people pulled over for being black are not on the other side who want (inaudible) pretext stops harm community relation waste resources and far too often caused those fearful of law enforcement to

flee and cause more unnecessary stops. the police commission should adopt public safety not fishing expeditions. racial profiling and generational harms must addressed. people who impacted by bias police you support you and a policy. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. this is mava young. can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay, i just went to the mta meeting and there was hundreds of people complaining about each other about slow streets and they are just wreaking havoc in our community so that is one example and people are enforcing

their own laws like yell at neighbors for different things. traffic and other things. so, if the police is not going to do these things, actually, the commissioners were saying neighbors should not be enforcing the law it should be the police. where are we going with these things if police not go toog do it? we are feeling our hands are tied and police hands are tied so where can we have a goal to get these problems solved? please think about safety as other speakers have spoken. whatever it takes communication needs to be improved that is what it takes, but that's not mean that it will make these problems go away. these problems will exist. whether you enforce or not. are you going to do it with the police or

somebody else? somebody needs to do something about these things. otherwise the community is going to tear each other apart, so please reconsider. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hello. my name is robert waung president chinese consolidated association with 172 years of (inaudible) social justice. i just learned pretext stops dgo 9.01 is being changed. we in the chinese community have not had the opportunity to hear and discuss our concerns that impact us. as you know many of our seniors have been physically assaulted. we fear the changes to the

chinese community and hear our concerns. thank you. please if you can come to our community with the police department to hear our concerns. thank you so much. >> dear president elias and commissioners, chief scott and executive director henderson. my name is tatiana lewis, i live in san francisco hunter points area and with legal services for prisoners with children as well as all of us or none. ending pretext stops is important to me because i have been impacted by this. in 2017 i graduated high school and got my license and just purchased a honda accord. i was on my way home to

change my work clothes and prepare for my night classes i was taking at city college. on the opside side of the road an officer made a illegal turn and pulled me over. he said he pulled me over because i didn't have a front license plate but i had a back one and because i was on probation he asked to search my car and felt i had to say yes. the officer started to ask me all kinds of uncomfortable questions such as do i have a boyfriend and if he is a criminal. he searched my car and didn't find anything but a small pepper spray which i use to protect myself as a young woman in society. this lead to me being detained. i lost my job, my car and had to drop out for the remaining school semester. i did nothing wrong that day and that stop changed my life forever. in

summary, police reject the proposal general order 9.01. thank you. >> that is the end of public comment. >> thank you. could we take item 10 out of order? >> line item 10. presentation on tenderloin district narcotic rest of juveniles and transitional age youth. discussion.

>> thank you so much. please proceed. >> vice president carter oberstone, commissioners, chief scott. director henderson and members of the public. my name is commander (inaudible) san francisco police department the commander in charge of investigations and like to introduce kevin heely who is our officer in charge of narcotic and tonight we'll present the tenderloin district narcotic arrest of juvenile and transitional age youth reports. i'll turn it over to lieutenant heely.

>> this agenda item i think commissioner yanez wanted us to talk about this. you have it powerpoint in front of you. captain will put it on the board is discuss the tenderloin district narcotic arrest of juveniles and transitional age youth. page 2, please. we will talk about booking and siteing. once a youth and youth for us is age 11-17 in police custody we follow the procedures. the first thing we do is murandize him or her and the reason we do that is knauz we have the california government code, san francisco administration codes and our general orders to tell us we have to do that. police are prohibited doing unnecessary conversation with the detained youth other then explaining why they are arrested or

detained. after consultation with public defender we have to call the public defender and let him or her know that we have a juvenile in custody. the public defender then guides them in what to do. members are allowed to us as a police officer aprovide procedural process. notifications. the san francisco police department will notify a adult someone 18 or older. this could be a family member, a mentor and we let them know the juvenile is in custody. the community assessment which is cac is contacted our policy and when when contacted they are notified of the charges and proceed by to the diversion process which is we

bring in the juvenile probation department because it is juvenile probation department their goal they oversee the juvenile arrest process. they are involved from beginningism misdemeanor cases the juvenile probation department differ s back and that way the juvenile if they agree to participate in a diversion program they will do that. if they successfully complete that diversion program then the case is closed and that's it off the books. if they unsuccessfully or don't complete the program there is referral back it the juvenile probation department and the probation department deems are they eligible for diversion program and usually they give them a second or third chance is in my personal opinion and personal experience. in felony cases the felony cases require the youth by cited or booked. the juvenile probation department will follow

up. it is the probation determine that determines do we cite the individual to an adult. do we cite up at (inaudible) or book them at ygc. felony cases and one thing just to be aware, it is not on it powerpoint, senate bill 439 a person 11 years old or younger there is only certain crime s they can commit where we can process them. felony cases are processed and handled by juvenile probation. 12-13 years old can be diverted back to carc even in a felony case. 14-17 handled by the juvenile district attorney's office for charging. the juvenile da can charge the case or discharge it and offer a pre-trial diversion with no court appearance for

that juvenile. juvenile courts too once the courts and judges get to see the case and present the case him or her they can offer a post-trial diversion program to the youth. as collaborative partnership with carc, juvenile da and juvenile courts juvenile probation department is actively involved from the start to the finish and juvenile probation department does provide monthly updates and it is on the website attached to the powerpoint. go to page 5 we talk about booking and citing in the tenderloin. it talks about juveniles age 11-17. just to note in that slide on page 5 no one under 14 was booked or cited for sales of narcotic dealingism . i think it is important because when you talk 11 and 12 year olds those numbers, we

have 11-17 due to the fact that is what we consider a juvenile. down below the same for transitional age youth from 18-24. this is a comparison for your comparison of people who were booked and people cited. turn to page 6, again, it is narcotics dealing in the tenderloin. pretty much the same as slide 5 other then it gives a year to date comparison. the tallies we had were brought up in crime data warehouse through november 7 this year so why we broke it down to compare that way. go to the last page or page 7, juveniles booked and cited dealing and this is done for the top is narcotic dealers booked and this is by race. from 2018 to 2022 and this is juvenile page how many juveniles were cited

or booked for dealing and next page it talks about the transitional age youth and those are people 18-24. that's what we consider a transitional youth and it gives you a tally of their race and breakdown of those that were booked and those cited from january 1 all the way to november 7. the last page on the slide is a diversion distribution. the one positive thing i like to see in this point out to all you is in 2021 there was 19.4 people juveniles brought to jjc the old ygc. in 2022 there is 15.4 so that number is going down which i think is a good indication our juvenile probation department sees that putting a

youth a person a young person in a detention facility is something we want to try to avoid. and we go to page last page and if there is any questions happy to answer them. i was just transferred to narcotics and did not do the powerpoint but i have a 28 year career and added up and half my career was at narcotics whether patrol officer for 12, sergeant with the dog for 3 and happy to be there as the lieutenant now doing my last 2 years with the sfpd. >> thank you very much for speeding through the presentation. i did-i agendized the item and did advice members of the community assessment refurl center to provide the diversion services

and want to honor their time and commitment they had on this issue throughout the course of their life. before i ask questions i would love to hear the perspective on the ground level from the director (inaudible) and denise coldman and long time advocate and a force in the city when it comes to talked about (inaudible) >> thank you so much commissioner for inviting us and thank you for the presentation.

>> now? >> yes. >> did a mic check earlier. >> your microphone is fading in out. it is low volume again. >> denise, while we resolve the tech element over there, would you be able to maybe introduce yourself and just give us your sense of the lay of the land the way things are

going right now? >> absolutely. i'm sorry. i am forgetting what is going on. m hello everybody, my name is denise colman and recently retired from hucklebear cart when i was the (inaudible) 24 years. (inaudible) is now in that role and i'm serving as a consultant to provide support. there are a lot of new things that are going to be happening with expanding and so you know, just having extrasupport is a god send. okay. (inaudible) not able to speak.

i'm so sorry. i am not prepared to speak. i was going to back her up. >> while (inaudible) works that out, i will go ahead and ask questions then. so we can move this along. on slide number-i like for you to clarify what is the department use to determine whether they cite and/or charge someone for either possession or sales? i see here in 21 there were 19 cited i believe for juveniles specifically, and in 22 year to date i wanted clarification on this number. in 22 through the first 3 quarters it says there

have been 30 either booked or cited for offenses or narcotic dealing. is that a number for the first 3 quarters compared to full year number total which says 29 or the year 2021 for those same infractions? >> looking at it so you talk about booked and cited, so there was booked cited and booked and cited. narcotics offenses and you are looking page 6. >> page 5. >> okay, going to page 5. so, that could be again anything from backed and cited you are looking at the year 2018 to 2022. a narcotic offense would be a misdemeanor. someone in possession of a small amount of crack cocaine is a citeable offense. a bookable

offense is felony and mandated to book on felony. a juvenile we don't determine that. the adult probation determines whether they go whether they are cited or whether they are booked . i want to clarify narcotic offense could be a misdemeanor on the left side but narcotics dealing is felony and any adult would be booked for that and not cited. there are exception if the jail is closed. we could get permission to cite for the felony but rarely happens. >> to clarify the total there, it says there are 30 year to date through november 7 for 2022 in the juvenile grand total. 2021 it says 29. is that 21 number for the

full year so that in effect we arrested just as many juveniles, actually one more arrested booked and cited 30 in 3 quarters this year versus 29 for the whole 2021 period, is that how that reads? >> yes. and could you speak to why the sudden increase of something like 35 percent, 33 percent has taken place? is there a new amount that leads to citation of booking or narcotic dealing charge? >> there is not. i can't give you a answer. >> commissioner, this is a chief scott. i can speak to it from my many visits to tenderloin talking to officers. what they are seeing is that some of these crews who operate on the street are using juveniles, and they

are seeing they believe in higher frequency and i don't want to speculate as to the reason for that but that is what i am told by officers making many arrests. talking patrol officers not necessarily narcotic unit officer but believe they share the same opinion. the people dealing the drugs are using juveniles more then we have seen in the past years. >> thank you. another clarifying question then, is there a-does the department have a understanding of what threshold i guess you could call it the district attorney office is using to determine whether they cite book obviously in conversation with the juvenile probation department. >> for us no. there is no

threshold. it would be if i have probable cause somebody possess illegal substance for purpose of sale. it could be as little of one gram but he sold to a undercover police officer so that is felony for sales. the amount does want matter to us, we are basing ours on probable cause when we charge someone for possession for sales which is a felony. straight possession is something a misdemeanor and at the narcotic unit our focus is drug dealers not so much the drug users. >> got it. >> i have a couple more questions. the section in the page number 9, your slide there with the pie which are really helpful. thank you for who ever put that

together. there is-in 21 there were 3.2 admonishments it seems like and in this year so far there are 2.6 percent of all the contact i guess with admonishment. what does that entail and what is the decision making process the officers undertake when they are making that ascertaining whether they will admonish cite or book? >> i have to say they probably have reasonable suspension for detention and once the detention was furthered they found out there is no probably cause so the form was filled out and became just a relief. there was no criminal activity. that is how i read that pie. >> okay. i have a firm understanding that the

juvenile probation department is not interested in holding booking young people especially juveniles for non violent felony offenses. is the department doing anything to insure that the officers that are enforcing the law are aware of this expectation or this expectation from the juvenile probation department that they don't have intention to detain those types of referrals? >> this is chief scott again. i meet with the chief of juvenile probation on a regular basis. one thing that i like you and others listening to this to take into consideration, some of these young folks, they may be arrested for only dealing drugs but there are other

activities that we know about or they are investigated for that are not necessarily non violent. we have to look at these cases holistically in that manner and that is is juvenile probation job and their determination. what we want to do is work together with them. if we some things are clear because of arrest history or involvement with law enforcement or criminal justice, some things are clear but we want to communicate and we don't want a opportunity to intervene with a kid headed down a path that may cause them to take or lose a life and look at this as a isolated incident they are non violent and they should be on the streets when we know they are involved in activity that may get them killed or cause them to hurt somebody else. it is really has to be looked at from a holistic approach and we rely on juvenile

probation for the determination but there needs to be collaboration because it isn't always clear cut. some of it kids are extremely going in the direction that is headed for violence or something bad to happen. >> individuals that come into contact with juveniles in those situations are getting support and benefiting from the same referrals and resources the city applied during regular working hours if you

want to call it that? >> i believe that question you are referring to carc so i'll let them answer that question. >> alright. can you hear me? >> yes. >> okay. i called in but using my video here on the computer. thanks for your patience and for the support and helping me put speak. so, i do want to answer your question, but also go back to just explaining the basic what carc does and brief as possible because it can get complex but to reground us a bit. to speak on what happens if we are closed we currently our hours are monday-friday 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. we stop taking youth at the point of arrest at

basically the officers can get here by 915 and we'll still take the young person. and that is really just to make sure that we have enough time to do the assessment, contact a parent or guardian and release them in a proper fashion. when we are closed, and so after 10 and on the weekdays, then what happens is if it is a misdemeanor, they will get cited to come to carc at a later date, usually to be notified written on the citation, and sfpd still contacts jpd to get a disposition. to confirm they can get cited to carc at a later date and we get the paper work once everything is completed and we contact that young person and their family to come in and go through a process similar what happened if we were open. if

they are charged with a felony then they are cited directly to probation for a intake and we do not see those young people because we are not open. and then of course for some felonys that are automatic booking, charges like murder, gun possession, robbery, those kind of charges are automatically booked regardless if we are open or not, but still sfpd contacts jpd to get that disposition to confirm that that's the process. we are in the process of determining what expanning carc would look like which includes our hours. now when we first were open or have different times during the 25 years we have in existence where hours varied so we have been in 24 hours, we

were open to midnight and what happens is 2 a.m. is that it is very far between that young people are cited at that time. it happens, but not enough to-it isn't cost effective essentially to be open that much. one thing that we are looking into with jpd and other community agencies and internally is to expand our hours but maybe a oncall mobile situation so maybe the offices are not physically opening 24/7 but there is some response similar to if we were if that makes sense. we are exploring that right now so that we can meet the needs of being available for young people and that it is a point of arrest they get a lot of the similar if not the same

services they would get where now they are not because we are not open 24/7. a long-winded response but wanted to make sure it was thorough and explaining what happens. >> thank you very much for that. the only other question i have so that the other commissioners can also inquire, i can't see the wait list from here. you alluded to something that is very important and actually part of the reason why i wanted to agendize this item. you-there are more young people used to sell drugs in the tenderloin and i know that we have been aware of those concerns and basically what is happening there is a form of

human trafficking taking place and one of the challenges in the conversation with carc or a gap we identified is in the fact that a lot of those young people do not have a responsible adult that is as responsible as we like them to be or not libing living in san francisco and thus not returning to address their diversion requirements which will lead to a petition if in case it turns into another charge down the road will lead to a (inaudible) offense for a lot of these immigrant and young people sometimes involved in these situations. the reason i mention that is because that gap is glaring, and the fact that we are seeing you know, in the demographic

breakdown a total of kids that are arrested being of latin origin, that that is very concerning because we know that the breath of the challenge is (inaudible) >> i like to know what the department understand about this particular issue and how or what we are doing to address the root of the problem there which is not the young people being used to sell drugs, but the ones providing the narcotics making our community unsafe. >> from the department

standpoint thank you for that question because that has been an ongoing discussion my entire time here. what we hear anecdotally is exactly what you said commissioner that there is problem an element and maybe a element of human trafficking. getting a information in the way we can use it to make to arrest or in court has been a huge challenge and i talk to a lot of people. i talk to people in court, juvenile people that deal with juveniles and probation folks and all, and i keep hearing a reoccurring theme they believe that is a factor. we had a whole lot of trouble trying to validate and prove that, so it is on our radar and our human trafficking folks and tony flor esand others had the discussions and not

able to get to the shield to get what we believe is happening with human trafficking. one thing we will continue to do is work at it. one thing i have been told about the-to your point about responsible adults the uncle that picks the kids up and released to them and don't see them until there is a warrant or worse circumstance is a problem as with el. i don't know how the police department can address that but what we try to address is some of our work is follow-up work and warrants at these locations. many out of the city where we try to take down the source of a supply of narcotics and that is ongoing thing and we had success there. it doesn't solve the problem but there is accountability with people that are putting kids out there on the streets. it is just hard

for us right now to prove the ort component of that but we suspect there a element there and maybe a significant element. >> thank you for your insight on that. (inaudible) do you have thoughts on that item? >> i have a couple. i think one of the action steps that i hope can be simple is that we have more coordinated-all the agencies that probably do or will be in contact with these young people to have regular meetings to make sure that we are streamlining how we respond to them. at least as far as intervention and response to these arrests and that isn't happening so that includes hsa, that includes sfpd,

jpb, the public defender office, that includes the da office, us and other key community agencies like ifr and i know the mission peace collaborative. there are people that are working with this specific population and some of these young people are tapped into services and some are not and right now we have no meetings. basic meetings to talk about that together and that is something that needs to happen and we dont feel it should be on the community to help lead that but we absolutely will if we have to, so that's one big piece i think. the other thing i want to uplift is when sfpd is in contract with a young person they know whether they witness the deal happening from a undercover cop for example. things like that, but when they are basically having or contacting the public

defender office to do the muranda rights and give them some legal education that is really key because they can also explain-most likely this young person will be cited for intake minimum and how important that is for them to show up and it doesn't automatically mean that they are going to get reported to ice or that they will be deported. all these other consequences may be fearful of but we don't know what they are threatened with for potentially attending the intake so they may want to go but they are in a situation that doesn't make safe for them to be able to. as adults and all the different levels of service provision it is our responsibility to help keep them safe and protect them and to prevent this happening but also to intervene.

yes, i think that phone call with the public defender office at that opponent is really important. the other thing i will say quickly as well is right now we are working internally carc with public defender office (inaudible) to come up with a more coordinated response and so one of those things for example is when the youth are actually coming into carc we go through the same process but one thing we will implement is that we call again to the public defender office to really explicitly then talk them through the process of what is intake. what is there to expect. some public defenders are in contact with these young people since they have been arrested multiple times and so they really reiterate how important it is for them to just show up and

that they will get the community support but also the legal support to do that including from carc. and the last thing i'll say is that it is happening often and what we are concerned about is that if they do not attend intake and i say maybe 2 or 3 times they have been arrested and cited and then not attending their probation intakes and this is whether they come through us or not, they are getting booked. just because they haven't attendeded a intake and we do not want that. that is not okay and it is no fault of these young people. and so that's something also that really needs to address. i do know-we talked with jpd, pd, the da office about this. they don't want to do it either, but right now because we are not having this really

coordinated response and on the same page and really figuring what else we can do, that's the only option that jpd really has to be able to get these young people to show up and go through the process and potentially get connected to services. >> thank you very much. thank you for clarifying also the operation hours. definitely not here but that is why you all are the experts. i'm going to differ to my colleagues after just reminding everyone we are a sanctuary city and when we make that claim we will continue to attract you know, communities that fear that enforcement element from the federal government and that we have said the city welcomes

them and we do not want to become a city that contributes to the deportation of young people biproxy. i will leave it at that. thank you very much. >> can we talk a little about the program and what we do? i'm not sure if all the commissioners are aware that we are diversion program and we take kids at the point of arrest. to help clarify why we know and are very familiar with all the things happening around young people getting arrested. >> great. thank you denise. yes, we are san francisco largest and only essentially community based diversion program. carc is one

of the programs huckleberry provides and we work with young people at the point of arrest for ages 11-17 regardless of the san francisco county resident or not as long as they made their arrest in san francisco we can see them during the hours are monday-friday, 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. as of right now. and basically we take all misdemeanors. we take most felonys. there are some specific 707b offenses we do not take. there is some that we do take as well. and some i mentioned earlier. murder, rape, robbery, gun possession, those-gun possession has been on the rise for calls we have gotten. those are

automatically getting booked actually (inaudible) for the other felonys like i explained earlier they can come into our site and go through the whole process that we provide which is basically a brief introduction about what has happened and what is going to happen while they are with us. a (inaudible) assessment and trauma inventory screening. and then what we call direct intervention. we have intentional dialogue what brought them there and what comes out of what the arrest is respectively. for misdemeanors we can handle at carc. that means we have a list of agreements that we have the

young person complete to help hold them accountable and kind of support them along with case management services of course, so that this is the last and only time at some point of their arrest, and then for felonys we still provide case management including support through the legal process which includes attending intake with them and if the da files charges supporting through the court process. if the da decides to support them or close out their case not charge them we can still continue supporting them and connecting them to community based services. and then just go back to the missing this piece. what sfpd has contact with the young person and what was named in the presentation, and they know they are going to arrest them and not ammonish

them, which we always encourage, they do call us, we take down all this basic information that is super critical. we are not just taking the name, date of birth and charges but we also get what county of resident they are in. what school they are enrolled in. have they contacted a parent or guardian. sfpd also has to contact hsa child protective services to determine if they have a open cps case to help guide us or jpb if they can get released to the parent or guardian they tell us is the parent or guardian. of course to determine if they are in foster care and so on and so forth. all that information at it opponent of arrest is very critical and what happens is we contact jpd, share all that information and they go

their process (inaudible) we are not privy to they determine what the disposition is and if they can come to carc sore get cite and released or booked and so on. i think i will leave it there because that is already a lot. >> thank you. i think the more we raise awareness and good work happening in san francisco puts us in a better position. i know that this is a ongoing item we will discuss in the work groups as we revise the general order around youth so anyone that wants to chime in get in contact with us and we will go in the work in the near future. thank you all. >> i was going to say

thank you. denise it is paul henderson. i want to thank you guys for coming. carc is actually the first program that i started from the da office. it is the very first program i put together developing policies. i go it was like 25 years ago. i was obviously a toddler at the time, but denise and i worked very closely at the time. so excited to see her and hear the presentation and excited it is still here and engaged as a program for young people so thank you for staying up with us and participating and making the presentation. it is a complement to talk about carc and what it is designed to do and hope to see more of you in the future. thank you. >> we would love to come back and do an all out full

presentation of our services and all the various components, restorative justice program and our (inaudible) program. we have lot different things going on to help our children and families in san francisco and to talk to you about how we can better continue to build our relationship. we developed a very good close relationship with sfpd and certainly like to continue that to grow because i know that chief scott is very passionate about diversion and we want to make sure that we do more of that in san francisco. >> great. thank you. i think that is a wonderful note to end on. thank you so much to our presenters virt ual and in person and thank you commissioner yanez for your leadership on the issue. sergeant can we go to public comment. >> public comment please approach the podium or press star 3. caller you

have 2 minutes. >> go ahead, sir. >> members of the police commission. i had the honor of having met you several of you specifically commissioner larry yee, commissioner kevin benedicto, and also you police chief william scott. the honorable police chief scott at the town hall meeting that was held in chinatown, june of this year. i come before you ladies

and gentlemen ladies and gentlemen , mr. walker chair person and fellow commissioners to give a presentation. my name is (inaudible) a resident of san francisco over 30 years . proud citizen of san francisco. proud citizen of the united states of america. i came here as a immigrant many decades ago originally from vietnam. and i want to share with those commissioners who are not familiar with who i am that unfortunately for me, i was brutally attacked and brutally assaulted by two individuals in front of a chinese supermarket. 118 stockton street november 2, 2019. the adult male who

brutally attacked and assaulted me along with his son both were arrested so on and so forth. let me get to the point here regarding what's discussed this evening. by the way, the same family who attacked and assaulted me november 2019 before they did that against me they also attacked a chinese-- (inaudible) >> thank you sir, that is your two minutes. >> (inaudible) at the corning of broadway street but- >> thank you sir. that is your 2 minutes. >> we are all aware here ladies and gentlemen, the anti-asian crimes have been extremely serious problem in san francisco. >> sir, sorry but it is a 2 minutes limit and your 2 minute

elapsed. >> okay. can i have one more minute? >> sorry, sir. >> to remind the commission you can ask clarifying questions but you have to give equal time to the public. >> sorry sir, we have to give equal time to everyone. >> i urge you as police commissioners to reject 9.01 because instead of being a sane and rational (inaudible) it will drive further into being the uncivilized society which effects all, (inaudible) thank you ladies and gentlemen. thank you chief scott. thank you commissioner larry yee and thank you mr. chair person. >> good evening, you

have 2 minutes. caller you have 2 minutes. caller you have 2 minutes. >> i try to speak on item 7 but the (inaudible) senior policy manager (inaudible) thank you for dr. davis cathy mire john mcknight and everyone for the good work. in october glide hosted a community listening session conducted by hrc and joined by members of the police commission, hrc staff and people from community who directly impacted by pretext stops. this des cushion lasted well beyond the time allotted and want to commend the (inaudible) stakeholders and people impacted. i

hope other city departments take notice how to replicate similar intentional community processes for policy making because the listening sessions really helped insure people impacted the harms of racially bias policing and experience and personal expertise are centered in the process and beyond the people who participate in the listening sessions and complete the survey, over hundred local organizations endorsed ending pretext stops in san francisco and this represents unprecedented outreach for dgo and support despite the oppositions conflating issues unrelated. to address a concern expressed by commissioner yee, the support includes chinatown community development, (inaudible) and the chinese progressive association so glide ask looking forward to commission discussion of the draft dgo coming up next. seeing it pass when it comes to vote and successful implementation of a

substantive policy. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. this is jennifer friedenbalk calling with coalition on homelessness and speaking tonight to stop the pretext stops and- >> ma'am, this is line item 10 regarding the tenderloin arrests. >> it is line item 10. i thought we were back to 7. thank you. i'll put down my hand. >> that is the end of public comment. >> thank you sergeant. can we go to line item 5 and members following along we are going to return to regular order from here on out on the agenda.

report on recent dpa activities, and announcements (dpa's report will be limited to a brief description of dpa activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting.) >> in terms of statistics we have opened 647 cases so far this years and closed 728. we have 254 cases that are currently pending and we sustained 54 cases this year. this time last year we sustained 45 cases. mediated 18 cases. there are 24 cases who investigations have gone beyond a 9 month period. this time last year there were 27 cases that had gone beyond a 9 month period. of those 24 cases that have gone beyond the 9 month period 21 cases are told. in terms of the number of cases pending with the commission there are 9. and cases that arepeneding decisions and outcome with the chief there are 87 cases. in terms of the weekly

trends, i didn't report on this last week or the week before that so in the past 3 weeks we received 52 cases. the top allegations that have come in have been 12 percent for officer behaving badly or speaking inappropriately and the second top allegation 11 percent is officer failing to take required action. again for the full list of the allegations and entire breakdown to hundred percent, that information could be found on the website. district breakdown. the number of cases in terms of allegations against individual precinctss the highest number is mission station where there were 8. the second highest was not for station at all but referrals and referrals mean that people have come

in to make complaints and the target agency is not necessarily sfpd so could be chp, park police, any other law enforcement agency and if you want the entire list of the breakdown of every presinth where the allegations have come in the information is on the website. i just report the top 2 in these weekly reports. in terms of outreach conducted outreach with (inaudible) on california radio program. that is a broadcast k1qi1010 a.m. provided about dpa history mission and how to work with the agency to the spanish speaking community on the radio today. in terms of the audit on november 21, we released to the police commission and the public the key issue report on

sfpd public reporting on officer misconduct and discipline so tonight we will present on that report to the public along with key issues in that report as well as what the next steps are for this misconduct audit. also last week dpa and the controller office received the 24 month response from sfpd on the status of recommendition as made in the use of force audit report. dpa and the controller office are in the process of reviewing those responses now to determine how many recommendations that were made from the audit still remain open and don't worry, i will be reporting on it here at police commission and upcoming meetings. in terms of operations in the meetings for this evening, there is nothing on the dpa none dpa calendars are in closed session. present in the room today with us are

my chief of staff sarah hawkins as well as my senior investigator matimate stonecipher in case there are issues that come up for dpa that need to be addressed. some of my staff left but they were here earlier. janelle kaywood and germane jones here from the policy division and nob (inaudible) will be presenting when we get to later item on the calendar. i have feedback on other items but i will get to them as they come up. that concludes my update. >> thank you. seeing no questions public comment please. >> those who like to make public comment approach the podium or press star

3. there is no public comment. >> that is a first for tonight. could you please call the next item please. >> 6, commission reports. discussion and possible action. (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 - commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings (action) >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you vice president carter oberstone. cog sent of the hour i'll keep the report short and focus on updates on is department general order. on order 5.16, which i have been spearheading in regard to search warrant. (inaudible) chief scott earlier today. i

believe that significant progress is made on 5.16 and going to ask the chair to calendar that on february 1, 2023 meeting for discussion and possible action and adoption. for dgo9.01 as members of the public are aware updated draft and discussion is scheduled for today since that updated draft was released vice president carter oberstone president elias and myself had a call with chief scott on some comments he had on the latest draft and materials he plans to get us this week. also heard feedback and received the hrc report and feedback from the community so looking for having the discussion on 9.o1 and receiving materials from the chief this week. that's all. >> commissioner

walker. >> thank you chair. the dgo process i'm working on are ongoing and likely not calendared for anything to the new year. some are just beginning to be reviewed the end of next year. what i did want to say, i and the chief met with business leaders in the community to talk about their issues around safety, protecting corridors et cetera and the conversations was productive. it is a effort to try start coordinating with all the different entities that are-i know the chief and i already discussed that prior to that and we'll be meeting again if not before the holiday immediately after some time with these folks. it just includes better coordinating around patrols, alchemy groups and all issues and different

departments as well that are out there doing the work on the street. i wanted to let everyone know that and thank the chief for doing that. i think it is really important conversation to have right now. thank you. >> commissioner yee. >> thank you very much vice president carter oberstone. regarding the dgo and working groups, told i need permission from the chair so i haven't had the-waiting for elias to move forward on it. thank you. >> seeing no one in the queue can we go to public comment, please? >> sorry- >> i'm sorry. >> my apology, i didn't send you is a text but i have 2 update said. i want to thank sergeant naval putting together a meeting with the

benchmarks folks that are developing the new system, the new alert system, and we want to schedule something for january for the benchmarks folks when they begin to launch because they are apparently about to go live in the next quarter. we love to have them present so they can explain the differences in the new system which will also inform the work group process for the revision of the early intervention system dgo. so, they are available when we give them time, so who ever it is i can loop back around with president elias to figure when in january that we have a opportunity and then just wanted to give an update around-i know that commissioner walker went to (inaudible) we both participated in a summary interview. i understand there

will be a video that is produced. i think it is something that the commission should be aware of and hope to see that at some point but it was a good experience just recollecting and reminiscing around the different experiences we had while out with the chief and a few officers out to the south to experience some of the civil right movement sites so that is my report. thank you. >> can we get public comment, please? >> members of the public that like to comment regarding line item 6 approach the podium or press star 3. there is no public comment. >> can we call item 8 please? >> line item 8 discussion regarding draft department general order 9.01 traf

enforcement and curtailing use of pretext stops. >> commissioners and members the last time this item was on our agenda was 7 months ago. since then the commission issued a revised dgo9.01. the revisions were substantial and reflected input from the community and subject matter experts and members of the department. a lot of people worked really hard on this and deserve recognition. i'll going to differ thank you until a later date when this item is brought up for a vote. the purpose of today's discussion on 9.01 is to give the full commission the opportunity to discuss the dgo. for members of the public, because of public meetling laws, we are not allowed to have full commission discussion outside

the public view only 3 commissioners can-which is 4 commissioners is a quorum so only 3 commissioners can come together and discuss it or work on a project together without triggering those laws so given the significance of the issue i thought it was important to give commissioners a opportunity to publicly discuss their views and thoughts on the regulation and of course to solicit feedback from members of the public. i just are before turning it over to my colleagues, i just want to give a brief overview of what this regulation does and the problem it is trying to solve. because i think there is a lot of confusion right what the regulation does and does not do and want to do my best to provide clarity to the public on this. this regulation has two main goals. the first goal and first idea that

motivates this regulation is the idea that this commission needs to use data and evidence in order to allocate its scarce law enforcement resource in the most efficient way possible so the city can be as safe as it can be possibly be with law enforcement resources we have on hand. right now our police department makes thousands upon thousands of stop for low level traffic offenses that are not producing a return on investment for the amount of time and money it takes to conduct those stops. these stops do not result in car crashes, do not result in deaths or injuries at any rate. these stops do not result in recovery of

contraband. given the other public safety tools we have at our disposal it is simply not justifiable to continue to spend resources on conducting these low level traffic stops. that is the first goal of the regulation. the second goal of this regulation and second idea motivating the regulation is that every person in this city deserves to be treated equally regardless of their race. just like any other government agency, one of the most important obligations our police department has a constitutional obligation is aaccord every citizen equal treatment under the law. these same stops that are producing little to no public safety benefits also happen to be carried out disproportionately against black and brown people, and none of the race neutral reasons that might

explain the race disparities are supported by the data, black and brown people are not committing traffic stops at higher rates. you can read cpa2020 report. a key finding for example. center for policing equity. thank you paul. and so i think that there is a understandable reflex for some people to say, well if we improve race disparities public safety must suffer as a consequence. that is just not true here. there is the same cluster of low level infractions where stops are not producing public safety benefit and also driving race disparities. there is sometimes a reflex to assume there is a trade-off between addressing the 2 issues but minimum in this case there really is not and the data and

evidence supporting this could not be more clear. so, how does this regulation accomplish these twin goals in practice? laws-as we heard from public commenters who focus on this, it calls out 9 low level infractions. that police officers can no longer make stops for. these infraction can continue to be enforced in other ways through parking tickets, and still enforced if the person is pulled over for an offense not on the banned list. if you pulled over for something serious like speeding you could be ticketed for any things on the list. so, it bans stops with exception for where there is legitimate public safety need. the second thing it does is it restricts what officers can do once a stop is made. it restreckts when the offices with

ask consent to search and ask questions. those practices are permitted with any concrete evidence to police criminal activity is afoot, they just can't use as a matter of course or indiscriminately because the data shows they are used to target people of color to conduct fishing expositions once the car is stopped. if there is evidence of criminal activity then these practices are fair game. it is just when there is no reason to believe any criminal activity an officer can no longer engage in the practice. those are the two main ways this policy addresses the two main goals and the last prong is data collection. it requires data collection in addition to what is required under state law so we can evaluate the

effects of the policy should be put into place and so the public can have access to the data and decide for themselves whether it is meeting or accomplishing the intended goals. the last thing i'll point out is that we also received--i guess the last thing i'll call out is just the public engagement piece of this. i want to highlight that the commission i think conducted the most--the points from folks who commented earlier wishing that hrc came to their specific neighborhood are well taken and understood but the public outreach component of this was the most exhaustive in the commission history for any policy revision it has ever undertaken so we heard about hrc incredible work earlier tonight in addition to

that, the commission had 4 working group meetings where the same group of subject matter experts met sequentially to go over the nuts and bolts of the process in detail and this included people from very diverse background. a lot of people had law enforcement backgrounds. others from the legal community. others were from community organizations, so we had a opportunity to from hear from all sides. commissioners also had three listening sessions that were close door specifically for officers where officers could ask us questions, give feedback directly. and i also want to call out the commission-this gets overlooked. the commission published a first draft, a rough draft, a flaw draft but a first draft of had regulation may 6 and that may not seem like a big

deal, but it is somewhat a radical act given how policy is generally made and historically made at this commission where typically sfpd is charged making revisions in the first instance and there is no public interaction to speak of. the department meets among itself for months and one day we see a draft and asked to vote on it in a couple weeks. but we took the opposite approach. we issued a draft at the first instance the public could see the direction this was going and they have something concrete to comment on. every single e-mail, every letter we received was published to the website in real time so everybody all members of the public could see everybody else's comments. finally, we did receive specific outreach from individuals who simply wanted to meet with a

commissioner to discuss the policy. i believe mr. allen was one of them. every person who reached out we said yes to. we made time for and met with them whether one on one or with a specific community group. i will say that the revisions that you see between the may 6 version and today's version reflect the diverse feedback we received from people all across the city including expert organizations like center for policing equity that made suggestions specifically for our dgo including california department of justice and we had opportunities to learn across the country that implemented pretext stop policies. i will stop there and welcome any comments from my fellow commissioners. commissioner walker.

[captioning will continue in a moment]

>> we are in the process of doing that. we believe we all want the same thing. we have to address it disparity issue and want to make sure that public safety is as much as we can impact public safety in a positive way we do that. there are disagreements on language and that is what we are taking back to look at the language and revisit it. what i promise the commission is i will take it our team including our attorneys and come back with input and feedbackism i did look at it and provide my personal input and feedback and wanted to go back to the sme and folks that worked on this and allow them to weigh in on not only my feedback but the version of this. that is where we are. promise to have something out. i

wanted to have it by this evening but we are not done and some is on me. i just had a schedule i couldn't get it in. we kill do as quickly as possible and hopefully tomorrow or no later then friday. by tomorrow we will have the feedback back to the commission. >> just as a follow up too, it would be helpful for me in looking at this if we were able to understand if there is a alternative ticketing response as opposed to pulling over someone-are we equip for that? what does that look like and is it legal? all those things are things i would like input from the city attorney's office and you all on. i feel-as

i was saying before when dr. davis was presenting, the opportunities for connection will be lost in this and if the solution is help people find solutions to these violations, i just don't know how we could take advantage of the lost connection. and if it is not you all, maybe think about who could be the replacement outreach in that event. >> commissioner yee. >> thank you very much vice president carter oberstone. regarding the 9.01 i try to get into one of the workshop group and one was held at the boys and girls club down in i think it was over by franklin street. franklin and golf. so, as i

plan to-going there i was told that you have three commissioners meeting there. and the meeting before that i announced i was attending. my intention was to be there and be a part of this. and add content to this. i felt i was left out. maybe it wasn't because you are doing it, but people just came in. so, regards to that, i just like to go dig into some of the i guess the updates on there that i guess the updates pretext stops that you have listed. so, i think the first one i had concerns with, the registration. if the vehicle isn't registered, how do you know it meets safety

standards? two is, if there is issue with it, it puts the residents in jeopardy and safety as well that we need to look into. regards to hopefully community come in to hrc director executive director cheryl david said, i remember maybe in the past they used to have that. some of these members that are in the city that have vehicles that need assistance where they cannot afford it and maybe can look to remedy that. but, again i think vehicles need to be registered and again, (inaudible) some point we have to put it in there and

making sure that vehicle code needs to be enforced for our safety. another one here too. sleeping in a car. suppose a guy is in the middle of the block speaking and parked in the intersection asleep. car isn't moving. there is a officer continue on? or does the officer continue to investigate and do a safety check on the person? you know, that's a issue that somebody comes up behind them and crashes right into the person. suppose there is people that are-have i guess mental issues, 5150. do the officers try to stop

that person or he's walking in the middle of the street. i am sure you have seen it before where people are just walking in the traffic. does the officer stop and that is something we have to look at. another one is, if there is a assault on a senior or assault and battery on a senior, which is not a felony or it is a fight breaking out, does the stop that event or that attack? as you know many seniors in our community and chinatown and bayview ingle side have been having these issues so their concern is safety too as well. i just want to open to them to

hear it so they don't come back later and say these guys they were attacked and the police didn't stop them. i'm sure dpa will get the reports as officers didn't do their job. we will get more of that too. what we should do is have discussion, bring it out. whether you want to hear it or not, i think we all should sit down and listen to our grievance or issues on the safety side because i hear it all the time. i go out there, they tell me-i says, we got to trust our police. they are doing due diligence. maybe not catching the perpetrator right away, but eventually we will get there, and it does happen but you cant catch them all. i like to -i have that conversation. that's

where i like to end right here. thank you very much. >> thank you. commissioner byrne. >> i guess just i am not going to respond to each comment. i want to clarify about you got able to attend the working group at the boys and girls club. that goes to the first thing i said at the beginning about about the brown act and because commissioner benedicto myself and elias were chairing each working group we have to attend each one so that is why there was no-we would have loved to welcome you if california law were otherwise but that is the only issue. >> can i respond to that? >> of course. >> the question is when do i participate? if you are there all the time where is my opportunity and fairness? that is all i say. >> that is how this body makes policies. commissioners are assigned to shepherd policies

through the dgo process and we can't all be on them because of the brown act. there were myriad other ways to participate by for example attending one of the i think 8 or 9 community listening sessions i dont believe you attended any, and that's frankly a (inaudible) to give folks a opportunity to all hear each other at the same time because we cant otherwise do that in closed session. >> so, i will ask one last question. since it was only you 3 was there another commissioner that attend the working group? >> no, because that violate the brown act. >> all three? >> three at all--all three commissioners at the working groups? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner byrne.

>> at night time isn't it appropriate to have a turn signal working if somebody changes lanes or am i seeing things wrong? normally somebody doesn't signal particularly at night it is (inaudible) the person may be driving impaired. i understand during the day there is a safety issue, but it wouldn't be imperative as night time and wondering where that came from because it just strikes me as obvious as a safety

issue. unless my common sense is different then somebody else. >> where it came from, to answer the question about safety implication we reached out to mta about this. mta said there were no-this particular infraction did not lead to any significant crashes. you won't notice but since the traffic code has thousands infractions there are many other infractions that cover for example unsafe lane change which is a contributor to crashes which was originally on the list but after we got new data from mta we removed it because we discovered it was leading to crashes but this particular infraction does not pose significant risk. i'll

shut up. i love talking about the vehicle code now. this particular part of the vehicle code just says you need to have your turn signal activated for the last hundred feet before you turn. there are other parts of the vehicle code that cover dangerous behavior that lead to potential crashes. >> so, somebody makes a left turn at night on a road where there is traffic coming the other way doesn't need to signal? that is a example. i get the lane change that's obvious (inaudible) the same thing making a left turn in a saichuation the traffic is coming the other way. is that wreckless driving or if you make the turn oncoming traffic he doesn't see it. it

is a issue of drafting. in other words, i get the unsafe lane change, but you have the left earn turn issue and right turn issue but particularly a left turn issue and a lot of streets in san francisco. that was the other issue. the sleeping in the car, number 8, if a car is parked in a residential neighborhood and there is a elderly couple living and they see somebody sleeping in the car the natural inclination is call the police. what are they doing sleeping outside my house? under as i understand it and again i may be confused, under number 8, no, they are better off calling department of public health or mta and are then mta notify the

police and the police can go. or, does the police then call the mta and public health because they got the complaint and then they can go? i mean, i get that you don't particularly if it is out in the western side of the city, particularly by san francisco state, because the cost of housing is so dear in san francisco, there is a number of vehicles there and those people with families sleep at night and it isn't a residential per se and they are not pulled over and hassled and if they are i agree, this dgo should deal with it, but somebody in a quite residential street in san francisco and there are still them, particularly an elderly couple i see how they would feel insecure and is the way around it to do this? to bring the other agency in before the police can check because they are concerned about

their safety? anyway, those were my concerns. but more importantly, i would like to ask of the three. i agree that there is racial disparities, but is the point of this to limit racial disparities or limit stops? i like a answer. is it to limit racial disparities or limit stops? you indicated in your point 2 vice president that i agree that there needs to be equal treatment under the law, but is the point to limit racial disparities or limit stops? >> speaking only for myself, the goal is reroute resources away from a policy that is failing so we can use those resources on more effective public safety strategies. >> right. that was

point one. >> as to the second point to reduce race disparities and one way to accomplish that is reduce stops most sus cept (inaudible) low level discretionary stop s. >> so, then we had the presentation and it was quite knowledgeable from the center for police equity three weeks ago. and in their handout they indicated and obviously they are advocating a end to pretextual stops. they pointed out i think page 11 that the evidence from the common wealth of virginia has shown a continuation of racial disparities. so, i think it is incumbent on the commission to be clear because we are talking fact base evidence and assuming this citation and i know

national public radio has made the comment along the same thing. this commission should be clear it is about limiting stops because limiting stops will limit racial disparity because we do not at least from the common wealth of virginia, we do not have fact based evidence that racial disparities are lessened as a result of stopping these stops. at least that was the presentation from the group that advocated. i get their position because if there are fewer stops there is in one sense fewer people of color pulled over. that's clear. but at least we should be honest with the people of san francisco that at least from the evidence from virginia it hasn't had the effect so far. the exact quote from the report was early evidence

from virginia shows a large reduction in the number of traffic stops which is what is intended, but a continuation of racial disparities. so, we need to be honest about what we are up to, and so that the people understand that this is what we are intending, by lessening the stops there is less people pulled over period which means it will have-because people of color are pulled over in greater proportion it will proportionally effect them, but the evidence from virginia is it will not at least so far reduce racial disparities. and that goes to the point about the exception to the rule. in item number 3, if somebody calls the police and says this

gentleman was driving irradically and gives the license plate, now driving irradically isn't a felony. maybe i read it wrong. the second issue you present is, you list the violent felonys. that's all well and good. i have no problem if a person commits a violent felony but should it be any violent felony. (inaudible) i mean, again you know, assault with deadly weapon. not necessarily life endanger, and that isn't there. should it be any violent felony? again, i don

know where it came from and i'll be honest with the commission, i learned over the years it is easier to edit something then to create something so i respect the work that has been done and much easier to edit something. an editor is not a writer. the writers are famouss, editors are not, but it is still a relevant issue. do you-should any violent felony meet that exception? and like a answer to that one. >> i was biting my tunge so thank you for that. i think there is confusion about that what that provision is doing. so, i think just take one step back. this provision is a exception to the rule that you can't make a stop for 9 low level infractions. police officers can make a stop when they have reasonable sus position of a crime. if there is a call saying

someone is engaged in mayham and the person is driving a car a stop can be made. the policy has nothing to say and doesn't change one bit. >> (inaudible) >> it isn't probably cause. i think there is confushz there. all those-i need to be clear because there is a lot of misinformation about this. officers can continue to make stops when criminals are in their car. this policy has nothing to say about that. if interest is a serious criminal offices can and should make stops. the policy is narrowly tailored (inaudible) in this case there didn't need to be editing. the drafters caught that in the first instance. >> i'm confused because number 3 says a person or motor vehicle matches the description of a suspect or

suspect vehicle in a murder attempted murder manslaughter armed robbery. why not any violent felony? you got to read to the end. give me the last clause. >> okay. right, so where the risk of death or life threatening injury is imminent if the suspect is not immediately apprehended so if somebody commits mayham and the car matches the description so somebody gets a license plate and car matches the description, then you can pull the person over. in other words, you have for everything or sorry, i am a lawyer you have for everything or you have it for just these enumerated felonys? >> i want to give everyone a chance to speak.

>> i am finished. >> just to read the clause. any felony where the risk of death or life threatening injury is imminent and the suspect isn't apprehended. if the only thing you can do is pull someone over for a broken taillight to make a stop, if you have such little evident you can use a broken taillight to make a stop. if there is a call in someone committed serious crime the policy puts no restrictions making a stop and think it contributes to confusion to suggest otherwise. nobody in the working groups for example ever suggested anything like that because it is clear on the face of this policy that such stops would continue to be made under the policy. >> thank you for the time. the last thing that i want to be clear about. the death of furlando castillo because of a broken taillight in minnesota

is something that this country and are this city should never forget. what happened to him is absolutely terrible and anything that can lead to the reduction of that i want to be clear, i think i speak for everybody on the commission, we support that, but in the effort to prevent something like fer lando castillo, we have to look at what we are doing factially based and realize that the policy that is before the commission is intended to lower number of stops hoping that leads to lowering of racial disparities though from virginia we have no evidence it will do that other then limit the number of stops. more stuff will come in. i yield my time and thank you vice

president. >> thank you commissioner byrne. commissioner benedicto. >> thank you very much. we are talking about this tonight and want to thank commissioners who were not able [speaker speaking fast]. with the question if someone were sleepingane car in the intersection there are traffic code violations that prevent you parking your car in a intersection so this policy would have no effect on the ability to make a stop for that purpose. the policy doesn't prevent (inaudible) short of a stop to comply with the law so if a officerp wanted to say move out of the

intersection but it is outside the bounds of the dgo because there are (inaudible) commissioner yee you talks about individuals with expired registration. this only covers what is required for traffic stop. we are not changing the legal requirement for registration if a car is parked a ticket can be issued for expired registration. as vice president oberstone said if a car were speeding and had expired registration they could be issued ticket for speeding and expired registration as well. i know you asked about a situation where pedestrian in a mental health crisis and perhaps might be liable for confinement under welfare institution code 5150,

that is also not contemplated by the order at all. nothing prevents a officer intervening in that circumstance. i thank you for raising the questions. you asked about cites in progress and that isn't thin bounds of this order since that's-(inaudible) not a felony. which does not change treatment of felony. it is limited to the 9 specific offenses and you also raised (inaudible) felt compelled to ask to seek appointment to the commission, and so it was very central as you went through the process and an attack on a

senior is not contemplated within the scope of this policy. i know both commissioner walker and commissioner yee addressed progressive ways to address fines and fees. that came up at several working groups and the sessions (inaudible) i absolutely think the chief is on board with creative ways to bring back programs like that and think that serious exploration of those programs are needed. i think those-i don't think any should preclude our undertaking efforts like this general order and think we should do both. comprehensive approach on those things. i know that commissioner byrne there was a little of (inaudible) turn signal and unsafe lane changes and different parts of had vehicle code. the same is true for left and right turns are covered in a different portion of had vehicle code then this one which is just

(inaudible) and i actually this particular one is a great example of how we try to be data driven. we met with mta and there were (inaudible) where were there ones in the initial draft where mta told us there were a number of accidents those did not make it in this draft so there was a effort to undertake that. i also wanted to again there was discussion but talk about your impression lower stops and lowering the disparities and i think our goal is lower disparities. i think if lowering the stops also lowers the absolute number that can be a public benefit. i think you saw i get asked how use of force reforms look 7 years out. it is often a big topic before this commission and the fact of thet matter

(inaudible) i find it a benefit officer involved shootings are down. i dont find it one or the other or one at the expense of the other. i think seeing reduction in actions that can be harmful is a benefit and know vice president carter oberstone (inaudible) i also think given some of the data that the center for policing equity shared about virginia, they still advocated the 3 prong approach wree are taking. i appreciate the virginia data (inaudible) i note a

statistics they show td is a study in san diego shows as many as 1/3 of patroller officer man hours are spent on low level spots with little public safety value and little investigatory value. i like to see that time given back. i like to see more time focused on the 5 (inaudible) there are so many good things we can do with our limited resources and removing something not cost effective and has tremendous downsides is a good move to do. more generally as mentioned when dr. davis was here i think it is our responsibility to enact a policy that is as evidence based and data driven and think that we have

done that. i think if someone looks at the draft from may to now we have been-we had not only as vice president oberstone the most exhaustive public outreach process. you have seen significant change from this process which is evidence it has been really successful and i think that this policy is san francisco would be on the leading edge but not be alone joining over dozen jurisdictions undertaking different attempts to do this policy and if those who have a memory remember when 5.01 was amended there was a lot of changes to a policy in place for decades about the (inaudible) shooting at cars, continuum of force and on that policy we were first and now the san francisco use

of force policy is a model elements have become state law and elements policy in dozens of departments in the country so this is a opportunity for san francisco to join and lead the way for other jurisdictions to follow. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. i just want to-commissioner benedicto did a really excellent job responding to a lot of issues raised. a lot of valid issues raised by my colleagues. just a couple things that i wanted to address that commission benedicto didn't get to, which is commissioner byrne's statement that we need to be honest with the public about what this is about reducing stops or reducing race disparities and i want to be honest this is about reducing race disparities. the virginia example that commissioner byrne gave and i think it is important to look at what happened in

other jurisdictions certainly, but virginia has a very different policy then the policy that is before this commission now. i actually this morning printed out the virginia policy and it banned stops for about 10 ish, 12 ish offenses and that is all it does. if that polk all you do then that's not going to stop race disparities because there are thousands upon thousands infractions someone could be stopped for. that is why our policy puts restrictions on investigative questions and consent searches because that's often the incentive to stop someone in the first instance. cp did cite the lack of reduction in race disparities but if you read that is why it says we need to be more aggressive then what we are proposing. cpe

criticize our policy because it didn't go far enough in their view. i don't think virginia dispels the notion that putting in these type of restrictions will reduce disparities, just the opposite. we have overwhelming evidence these type of approaches reduce disparities . in nashville showed it did. in oakland their policy drastically reduced disparities. i'm forgetting--in connecticut jurisdictions have good data on this and their efforts at tackage pretext stops reduced disparities so think the evidence is strong when done in a comprehensive way rather then a piece meal way the way virginia did it does reduce

disparities dramatically. i'll make one last point and commissioner benedicto did cover this again. i think we need to be thinking about all the other great things that our officers can be doing if they are not making these stops. a gentleman no longer here today but commented earlier about being attacked. i would love to see the hours spent on these stops redirected to more foot patrol to protect people like him. i love to see faster response times to call for service. i love to see improve our clearance rates for violent crime which lag other law enforcement agencies in california. i think there is so many things that our officers have proven they are great at and if given the

opportunity could yield result for the people of the city. i'll stop there and turn it over to director henderson. >> thank you. i was going to say that because of the significance of this and importance of this i think maybe in the future one thing we might want to consider is just having a special meeting for it. we still have so much agenda to go through but because we have done so much getting up to this point my 2 cents it may warrant a special meeting in the future for similar type projects. i wanted to say because i know so many people have done so much already in talking about pretext stops, and so many penal have come to the table, community police officers the chief myself all of the commissioners hrc has

all been participating all across the pipeline to get to this point where we are now leading up to this discussion about the pretext stops. i just wanted to remind folks that the pretext stops itself are the root cause of racially disparate polices and what we really want is a data driven apoathat is implemented. specifically talking about the data that we have concerns and we want to make sure that the department in addressing the data that the stop data we are collecting is going to be both accurate and readily available not just to the commission but to dpa and the public as well where it is necessary so we can measure the impact of whatever our next steps are going to be as it refers to pretext stops. i think commissioner

benedicto referenced it as well on having a data driven policy that was evidence based and i agree that completely and totally. i just remind folks we raised the issue back in 2020 having a evidence based policy similar to the program and the policy that is already been adopted in oakland. i want to make sure that we-it is two years later and we are still here and still having these discussions and i know you just referenced the efficacy and efficiency from the oakland project that is already in existence. i think the city deserves to move forward. i think the city deserves to have a policy and program and again, i think that the best one will be based on both data driven policy and one that is evidence

based. i want to say that. i will not repeat all the arguments but i wanted to weigh in at least from the perspective of dpa that sees reviews looks at and involved intimately and the race complaints that come into our office dealing with this issue. that's it. i just wanted to say that. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you. i just will make quick points because we have a lot of public comment. i appreciate all the time effort energy and due diligence on the commission part on this effort. i know there are many opinions how (inaudible) it has been a comprehensive as

anything i have seen on behalf of this commission so i commend you all for that. and i just want to similar to commissioner benedicto was mentioning, that one reference about one jurisdiction in the country (inaudible) i believe the presentation from the policing equity indicated none of the jurisdictions that have begun to reduce or limit pretext stops had seen increase in any unsafe outcomes so keep that in mind when we cite one study that there many studies that demonstrated this does not have adverse effect on public safety. b, i do want to you know-looking for the study just referenced from san diego, but

glad you commissioner benedicto mentioned the 1/3 of times spent and lost on pretext stops that didn't yield anything. if we were to apply that percentage to san francisco, that is about $200 million in staff time that could have been used in some other way shape or form. we are not san diego but we can extrapolate and come to conclusions based on the information so we are taking a very data driven informed approach. that's for the general kind of conversation happening right now. my questions are just a little more specific to just clarification about in the dgo it doesn't necessarily-doesn't indicate what the procedure and expectation for officers to mail out citations would be

which is something i think we should think about because whether it happens on the training end or from the very outset it would be helpful for people to understand there still is a procedure to hold folks accountable when they have expired license tag or have a broken turn signal. there is a administrative approach to that. what we are try toog do is reduce the (inaudible) i agree with the direction we are taking and need to continue to field feedback but i am very very strongly you know, happy with the process so far and i think we are pretty much ready to move forward and it will not

sacrifice or compromise san francisco public safety outcomes. that's just one note around how to add language to clarify the mailing citation element. the other question i would have, we don't need to spend too much time, we can maybe post a answer to this. i would like to know because there was a caller earlier talking about what is the difference between this carveout for commercial vehicles and how we came to that conclusion? that would be something that would be public interest because that is just a question i had in that area. those are really my only points and clarification questions for the commission. for the chief i have a question in general for the department. there is just two new laws coming into play starting in

january (inaudible) around (inaudible) banning loitering and (inaudible) 2147 banning jaywalking. we could easily say some of these things will lead to improved outcomes or less policing and they could be included maybe in this dgo. what is the process that the department undertakes when new laws come out that impact our ability to police or the manner in which we police? >> commissioner, we have a process for legislative updates and when laws change that require us to change our policies we have-we put out notice. if that policy requires the commission to act on the dgo or if the change in legislation has to come to the commission but dgo3.01 is

written currently, it gives us the ability if the change needs to be made immediately to do that and bring that to the commission for approval for the dgo change. there is a process for that. and the laws for the right to walk legislation i believe is 13 citations that are no longer enforceable unless there's certain conditions met, so we'll abide by the law on those. i believe some of the language in the current draft reflects language in the law. for the police department,-a lot of what is said here, there is hesitancy on my side of this conversation as far as the ban and understand the issue. understand it very clear. pretext stops, i don't-we are there on that, but

that's where we have been asked to or i have been asked to go back and vet out the discussion and get something back to the commission very quickly on alternative language then what is presented by the commission or if we have opposition i will make that known but we will do that and do that with our best efforts and then we'll get back to the commission on that. >> commissioner just to chime in, item 9 on the ban list does implement ab2147. >> that is a incorporated already. would we be able to incorporate more language? that is my ultimately i know the list is much longer when it first started, and i hope we can revisit after we enact the policy look at data and then think what else we can

include in a policy that will hopefully curtail the over representation of minority communities in contact with the police department. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner yee. >> thank you again vice president carter oberstone. in regards to i guess many of these pretext stops, as i stated probably about a year and a half ago i was told (inaudible) shouldn't consider it, but what we should have done maybe in the past is go to the state legislators making sure when vehicles are getting small annually or biannually, make sure that-or when they get their oil change mandate it in the state legislation that the shops need to check

the break lights making sure all the lights are functional. if not, then it doesn't pass and it-making sure we in the police department do not have to police this and can avoid many of these pretext stops that did arise from it. that will be my first thing i want to say. regarding parking and i know commissioner benedicto says it is also in regards to any (inaudible) i think it needs to be in context when they are sleeping (inaudible) sleeping in the car-i'm going on. you say that won't happen. it does happen. they interpret it different way or bring it out

and they say they can look at a coin, it is either heads or tail, right? the other one is in regards to traffic tags expiration tags. as you know now many-some of the vehicles that come to the city have paper tags. some are real and some of them aren't. i dont know where they get it from but if you look they don't have expiration dates on some and what does the officer do? whether that person is i guess doing maybe committing crimes or not. and you can't get description on the vehicle. the vehicle is-what is the license plate? it is a paper tag. we need to have

some rules and regulations we need to follow and make sure that you don't perpetuate more of these-paper tags. i'll go home and draw a tag put it out there and says paper tag or print it out. we need to make sure that we keep it safer in our city, and have these enforcement making sure people comply. getting their vehicle checked out. you say it isn't a big thing, could be a big thing when it breaks down in the middle of the freeway or on a major street. we need to make sure people that drive in our city comply with some of the regulations. this is why it was enacted in the state level for the vehicles. regards to i

guess on page 4 item 3, on there it says, or any other felony where the risk of death or life threatening injury is imminent if the suspect is not immediately apre-handed. sometimes the word felony gets in the way. while it isn't a felony which commissioner byrne says, maybe i don't stop the person. i think you maybe add in there and bodily injury. it could be little fight or big fight but sometime a little fight can be (inaudible) once he hits the ground. we just want to make sure that the police there is clarity on there. that's what i want to see for our members making sure the second guess. if

they do enforcement dpa will be knocking on the door calling them up and then the members how they feel. do the safest way. don't pull back. our citizens residents will not seem safe. that is where i'm coming from. i'll end it there. thank you. >> thank you commissioner yee. just two quick clarifications. you points about paper license plates and not having license plates on the car just want to be very clear, if you put a fake license plate on it car paper plate you could make a stop for that under this regulation. also this regulation requires everyone to have a rear plate that is clearly visible and are properly mounted, so that would be a stop so your other example

of driving around with no plates that is fair game under this policy. just very briefly your last point on clarity i think whether you like the policy or hate the policy it is clear. the department is a fan of a different approach similar to what is done in los angeles that still-creates a lot of gray area when a stop is permitted or not. here we outline 9 stops, you are not allowed to make them, everything else you can make. that is clear. you may not agree with the policy but it does provide clear direction to officers in the field which i think is a important obligation to the commission when we make any policy. >> you want me to respond? okay. so, i asked the question when will the car-when will a officer pull over if there is no expired tag, a year, a

month, 5 years? >> as commissioner benedicto pointed out that is still a offense you can receive a ticket for so that will continue to be enforced that way. also note there is 4 jurisdictions that have done this philadelphia, pittsburgh seattle and west hollywood have this among banned stops. there -if you want to park your car or leave san francisco where you could be stopped or if you want to sell your car because it is very difficult to do that if you have payments in arrears at the dmv. other jurisdictions have implemented this without any type of catastroph consequence and it is enforceable when the car is parked or pulled over

for another offense as well. >> there is-i guess the question is when does an officer pull them over? sees it on the road and wont pull them over whether it is a year or 5 years or month, right? i want to be clear. is that correct? >> if i understand your question yes it is on the list of banned offenses, cannot make a stop specifically for that offense. you can ticket the person if they are parked and you can ticket if you pulled them over for a different offense. >> if you can ticket them for parking why wouldn't you ticket for driving? >> i think this gets back to the commissioner with commissioner byrne. this policy isn't about reducing enforcement it is reducing stops. we don't have a issue with enforcement of anything on the banned list. that

is why we continue to allow for avenues for enforcement. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. seeing nobody else in the queue please take us to public comment. >> those that like to make public comment approach the podium or press star 3. >> thank you. i do want to (inaudible) [unable to hear speaker] >> commissioner benedicto and president elias meeting with me and having dialogue. i would have two specific amendments to offer and general comment if i have the time. with respect to number 7, a7 the failure to signal while turning. i recommend that be deleted for the reasons that i set

forth in my december 5 memorandum. but if we can't see fit to do that if that pulled out of the station what i recommend addition of clause at the end that reads unless there is risk of harm to person or property. unless there is a imminent risk of harm to person or property. i think that does a better job reconciling it goals you are trying to manage. in subsection 9, my friends at the cycling friends found a good safe harbor because as this is worded, there could be a stop if there is imminent danger will crash into a vehicle but not if the pedestrian or cyclist crashes into a pedestrian. the obvious fix (inaudible) the easiest fix is

in the 4th line before the word moving put in the words pedestrian or a. i bum barded the commission with scores of pages so won't repeat arguments and don't have time anyway. i don't agree with the process. i think despite the best efforts including the hrc it is determine istic. with that mr. vice president may i--(inaudible) >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening commissioner, director henderson ,

chief scott (inaudible) glide is a proud member of (inaudible) representing over hundred organizations united in the goal to end pretext stops in san francisco. traffic stops are most common way people come into contact with law enforcement. san francisco is especially egregious in over-policing communities of color (inaudible) which lead to police misconduct and use of force and banned in other jurisdictions. many complaints the department of police accountability stem from pretext stops reducing the stops reduce complaints and reduce backlog of complaints sfpd failed to address in a timely fashion. based on data and stories related (inaudible) we need ban the stops that produce these results and very thoughtful about exceptions the policies allow. (inaudible)

the needs to move quickly is reinforced by the june 2022 report that found san francisco rates the worst in state with (inaudible) black residents. some commissioners explained, this policy will not negatively impact public safety and benefit the community because pretext stops are causing damage and harming safety of community members. proceed to address these harms which (inaudible) any pretext stop has support of the community and leadership. thank you. >> thank you commissioners. i feel laws are to keep people safe and insure civilized society so completely against limiting the police ability to enforce laws. i think all people should be treated fail laer and equally and

law levied equitably. pr venting the police stopping from infractions does legalize them. i with don't think these fractions are miner inconveniences. the bicycles on the sidewalk are quite dangerous. when crossing the street i try to engage and look in the driver eye before crossing. come across cars with tinted windows and can't see inside and see their intentions and i find it dangerous. also from a registration perspective i think if they don't have a current registration they likely don't have current insurance which is a danger to others as well. on a more personal basis, i got a 16 year old daughter. (inaudible) she was pulled over for not having her taillights on. strangely the car has a setting where you

can have the day time running lights on, instrument dash lights but no taillights. the officer pulled her over, sized her up in her high school soccer gear, decided he wasn't under influence or causing trouble gave her a safety lecture, got her to get her lights turned on properly and let her go. very respectful interaction and contrary to data i think it is very dangerous to be driving without taillights and actually glad as a parent i can't be there all the time. i'm glad she got pulled over. glad she was given the safety lecture and glad that was something hopefully will correct her behavior in the future. thank you.

>> my name is (inaudible) hussain. i came for another matter but after hearing the comments i wanted to chime in myself. i am just against taking the police ability to enforce the laws. it takes away in my opinion a tool that keeps us safe. growing up i never liked the police myself. when i was young probably when i got my license probably one of the biggest life changing insdants of my life when i got pulled over and it was a pretext stop. i am a minority. that officers probably changed my life had i not been

stopped that day? instead of getting me in trouble or doing anything like that, he made me write a essay as to what i was doing or what i was doing was wrong. i think that kind of policing creates better people. i'm sure i would have been a much different person today had not been for that stop in my view was a pretext stop but it changed my life. i respectively would like to request the commission take into consideration to give the police the tools they need to be able to keep us safe in the city. thank you. >> caller you have 2

minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) living in district 7. calling to oppose the december 14 revised draft of the general enforcement order 9.01. we are losing enforcement of violation is not the way to eliminate bias in traffic stops. it is dangerous to public safety. it is not safe to drive a broken headlight or taillight especially in the fog. this will cause many accidents which will raise everyone insurance rates and cause injuries and death and we know criminals remove license plates (inaudible) while committing crimes. many criminals assault our community and (inaudible) would not benefit the police arresting these criminals. it is not safe to drive

with broken-(inaudible) we want public safety not more deaths and injuries. (inaudible) you should not limit the ability of the police. the focus should be on officer training and hiring. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> thank you. also for glide and coalition (inaudible) [speaker speaking very fast. difficulty understanding] presented a false narrative that banning pretext stops will impact public safety. sharing the information about the dgo and (inaudible) impacted by the

policy when it is the harms that (inaudible) jeopardize public safety. pretext stops waste community resources and result in (inaudible) to suggest otherwise diminish generational harms caused by racial profiling. this policy has always been about the safety and wellbeing of the community. reducing enforcement of pretext stops does not increase public danger and the policy will not diminish confidence in city government. if anything it demonstrates san francisco ability to make rational data inform decisions and recognize that it st. time to join the other cities counties and states that have already implemented similar effective policy. (inaudible) proven best practice does not require a pilot program. this is not how the commission (inaudible) no need to single dgo9.o1. the policy reduce the burden we place on police which increase

officer availability. (inaudible) implemented this in all corners of the country and no adverse consequence. please adopt the most comprehensive version of the process to address racial profiling and end pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> yes. my name is (inaudible) and i am calling in to talk about specifically the turn signaling. i'm not sure where you get your figures but society of automotive engineers conducted a study which indicating failing to signal accounts for 2 million accidents per year. that is nationally. i'm going to read a e-mail i received work for non profit that is focused on

victim rights and public safety. the following is from a party. hello, i do not drive, i don't know the rules. for sure bicycles on sidewalk is danger for people like me, legally blind disabled. bicycles usually do not stop to let me go when i cross the street. it takes longer for me to cross and still on the road when people start to run. it is really dangerous. should the light house for the blind become involved? thank you. (inaudible) thank you for my comments and police do not adopt general order 9.01 mpt thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> thank you commissioners lee and byrne for your cogent analysis of how poorly this has

been drafted. i am concerned there is going to be no enforcement of expired registration. a car in san francisco can go for 5, 10, 15, 20 years with no car registration which means no insurance because you can't have insurance without registration and vice versa and can go years without a smog certification. me as a citizen is paying for all of them. if you do that why don't you assess further and say no enforcement of neighborhood parking permits or disabled parking. commissioner benedicto i find it ironic you say don't do it on the road but police officers have all the time in the world to ticket a parked car when they are supposed to be investigating more serious crimes, right? also section 3 of commissioner byrne pointed out (inaudible) the car turns the corner and a

police officer sees that,x there isn't a felony that is life threatening because he or she does not know the felony reaches the $950 limit. (inaudible) all are so many issues with this clearly (inaudible) i think what has to happen is a refacing how we look at crime versus safety versus enforcement. i find that you're not making san francisco any safer, why we have the highest (inaudible) of any city. the slowest return rate of tourist because we are creating a dangerous city. as a example how poorly this is written as many pointed out-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is

(inaudible) i amazing with the amount of misinformation circulated about this policy. this isn't going to prevent officers from investigating crimes from enforcing the-it doesn't legalize these low level crimes. what it does is limits the interaction between police officers and the community by eliminating the stops based solely on low level crimes. i don't think somebody should be stopped because they have something hanging from the rearview mirror. the fact you have such a large number of folks who are african american being stopped compared to the amount of people living in the city is concerning (inaudible)

28 percent of the stops from them and (inaudible) this makes it clear to me these are bias stopped. we want to work to eliminate this. we want to make sure our community is protected. (inaudible) such as are you-do you have a felony, do you have-or people held at gun point for something ridiculous as the other members mentioned at the hrc hearing. this is what this ordinance is trying to prevent and we want to create safety in our

community. again, it frees-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening commissioners. (inaudible) we urge you to adopt the strongest possible version of this policy. sfpd found black san francisco (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality]

>> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening. carolyn (inaudible) a mother of 2 and long time san

francisco city employee and resident. also part of the coalition to end pretext stops and amazing seeing individuals from every community in san francisco come together in support of (inaudible) including the city leading traffic safety and pedestrian advocate who strongly supports the new proposed policy. we are all united around thes because this is data and evidence driven policy aimed to reduce violence and increase (inaudible). what some folks seem to be forgetting is traffic stops discussed are not used to pull over and harass people who look like me has a chinese and white person. it is black and brown folks in certain neighborhoods of the city stopped and harassed due to race under (inaudible) spoke in front of you about her

experience. you have seen the data. the is outrageous. pretext stops do not make reduction in criminal activity, do nothing to support public safety and high time san francisco put a end to the problematic and racially bias tactic. thank you and urge you to support the policy to prohibit racially bias stops. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. this is jennifer friedenbalk coalition on homelessness and i am calling about the pretext stops. 2018sfpd stopped black people 6 times the rate of white people. (inaudible) and at least 12 times more likely to use force on black people then

white people. this is really about sexual racism that needs to be separated out from individual bias or racism. with individual racism bias can be addressed through developing trust and having deeper relationships but with structural racism there needs to be a change in policy and practice and that is what this policy is all about. it does not impact negative way public safety. i think the has been a lot of misinformation put out there. it also should not be read as anti-police. there is also a of work done to get rid of racial discrimination on (inaudible) that doesn't mean folks are anti-supportive housing providers or housing providers. there is a lot of work done to address disparities in health care, that doesn't mean

people are anti(inaudible) so it shouldn't drive a bunch of folks out in response to that. this is really evidence based scientific and needs to be supported. thank you very much. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. i'm flo kelly and work with coalition on homelessness. i am calling because it is really important that we not continue with pretextual stops. they are not making our streets any safer for people who walk bike or drive. in fact these stops are a waste of resources when we should focus on very dangerous things like speeding and running red lights

and not stopping for pedestrians in the crosswalk. for sure this policy is data driven. san francisco (inaudible) communities of color (inaudible) in 2021sfpd conducted 27.500 stops that resulted in 6,000 searches. black people make up 5 percent of the population in san francisco but accounted for 26 percent of all stops and 36 percent of all searches. my goodness, it is embarrassing to say when a police car is behind me and not sure what they are daing doing and if they are following me, i feel

myself, at least i'm white and have white hair to show my age and it probably won't stop me. i know if i was a different person with darker skin then i would likely be stopped-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) born and raised in the tenderloin and building manager at the san francisco bike coalition and proud members (inaudible) we urge to you adopt the policy that requires data transparency and put end to pretext stops in san francisco. we join the coalition because (inaudible) there is nothing safe about pretext stops as a tool to over police black and brown

communities and nothing safe (inaudible) most of the streets (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] there are 5 specific behaviors that lead to serious and collisions on the kwreets we are barely enforcing now. none of the 5 behaviors included on the pretext stops. (inaudible) what the policy does is limit what happens after a stop is made and reduce the burden placed on police so they don't enforce dmv regulation (inaudible) allow them to do real police work. the data shows pretext stops are not making our (inaudible)

comprehensive and data driven and focus on public safety. thank you so much for your time. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) i would urge you to either not adopt this or make modifications. i think it is well intentioned but don't get (inaudible) i can see about the registration. it is easy to steal a license plate and put it on a car and the officer-(inaudible) the other thing i'm very concerned about, i can't tell how many times i walked oen the sidewalk and someone barely missing me on a

bicycle. for a police officer not have to the ability i wish i was young enough it didn't matter if i was hit by a bicycle. unfortunately, the best way to describe it, i like (inaudible) i don't have to use their services. i really urge you to either look at this differently or and make modifications, or quite frankly to (inaudible) i think it is well intentioned. i don't think it is well (inaudible) thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. my name is (inaudible) and i live in district 7 and work at community resource initiatives and

community resource initiativeicize a member of the coalition to end pretext stops and urge the commission to adopt a comprehensive policy that puts a end to pretext stops. (inaudible) never have i seen a police intervene in the middle of a traffic (inaudible) there is no changes to public safety and we have seen the use of pretext stops made streets more dangerous. from 2016 to 2021 nationally police officers (inaudible) who were not under (inaudible) were killed by police after pretext stops. many of it stops started with common traffic violations.

black drivers are over represented among those killed. ending pretext stops would not make the city unsafe , it will make the city safer (inaudible) i just want to be clear this policy should be beginning. the racial disparities seen (inaudible) throughout all the interaction of people. i urge the commission to (inaudible) >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hello, my name is (inaudible) [difficulty hearing speaker due to audio quality] and ends pretext stops in san francisco. the human right commission (inaudible)

have the worst record in the state solving (inaudible)

>> caller you have 2 minutes. >> this is kristen evans small business owner. it is late for me so i'll make my remarks brief. i organize with council district merchants association

and (inaudible) but i'm calling today on behalf of myself a small business owner. i urge you to focus on policing hours on issues impacting small businesses and not wasting resources on pretextual stops which are not resulting in safety for our community. i am going to mention when i was a younger person i (inaudible) that insisted long hours in the office and have to say there were a couple times i pulled my car over to take a nap and i knew the people that are in their vehicles that are getting shut eye are often working multiple jobs as many small business employees have to do to make ends meet and very expensive city. i feel like it

is urgent that we let people get rest because when they pull over they need the sleep and it is in their interest and public safety to get that sleep they can operate their vehicle with safe (inaudible) i also want to say that i have seen how policing can impact communities of color disproportionate in san francisco and i have real concern that the data shows that inspite of talking about inherent racial bias the sfpd is so slow in addressing those inequities. this is a point that we- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) a criminal justice student

organizing (inaudible) watching my dad pulled over questioned if he did not belong in the car country or earth a foreign being (inaudible) confused i sat in the back of the car as any 6 year old would (inaudible) sfpd tormented (inaudible) just listen to everything they say puts your hands comply or you will die. the word my father and (inaudible) this is a dire consequence of pretext stops. as a 16 year old learning how to drive (inaudible) who

imagine sat at the scene powerless confused and (inaudible) last time they will see their loved one. 6 year old relieved i got to go home with my dad (inaudible) could have happen to me. no one should face death for a broken taillight. (inaudible) driving while black. pretext stops increase my community chances of death more then they alleviate crime. (inaudible) insure we have comprehensive public safety the police commission should adopt a dgo focused on public safety not fishing expositions by implementing a policy to eliminate pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening. my name is javier and live in

excelsior and urge you to adopt a comprehensive policy to end pretext stops. (inaudible) do little to improve public safety. too long officers have been incentivized by (inaudible) pretext stops provide to investigate those who officers deem suspicious based on subjective fears or biases. there are deep institutional problems. it isn't a matter which training curriculum sfpd implements or new officers they hire we must move bias discretion from the point of harm. to the police commission should adopt the dgo that focus on public safety. racial profiling and generationling harms caused by bias policing need to be confronted with this policy. i'm urging you to

adopt this policy and end pretext stops in san francisco for the good of our community. thank you very much. >> go ahead, sir. >> hi. my name is frank (inaudible) speaking on behalf of stop crime sf. i think some callers and maybe commissioners are conflating pretext stops with traffic stops. i must say i also disagree with the chair's characterization of several items. first, i think there is a lack of relevant fact based evidence. some of the facts have been cherry picked. i am also shocked that we are using as good knmps oakland,er seattle, portland, places that have seen

a huge rise in crime in the last 3 or 4 years. i don't think most residents of oakland would agree they are going in the right direction. we oppose the general order. we think that means more accidents more crime and less public safety. on a couple items it looks like some commissioners didn't read it. we talked about--others have talked about the pedestrians on the sidewalk. i would like to say that racial discrimination should never be allowed. that is a important goal. driving while black is a real think but there are poor things in this order. a few examples, the failure to signal caused too 2

million accidents a year for left turns and changing lanes. bikes could drive in the middle of the street under this, and i also dispute that good traffic enforcement is a good use of time. failure to signal-thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> my name is (inaudible) the director of (inaudible) here to request you adopt comprehensive policy to prohibit racially bias traffic stops in san francisco. racial disparities have not changed in traffic stops and san francisco (inaudible) communities of color with pretextual stops. since 2018sfpd stopped [people 6 times the rate of

white people (inaudible) 12 times more likely to use force on black people then white people. as a black man stopped by the police many times for pretextual reasons the harmss of the stops are real and (inaudible) result in my death because a cop does not like it if i (inaudible) ask questions why i was stopped in the first place. i cannot overstate the danger of these stops. the danger present to my life and lives of many black people killed by the police with interactions that began with the stops like (inaudible) this is why the police commission should ban pretext stops. the police commission should adopt this policy the most comprehensive version of it that is focused on public safety and not fishing expeditions. racial profiling and generational harms

caused by bias policing (inaudible) research shows enforcing pretextual infractions has little impact on reducing crime and (inaudible) profiling of communities of color and waste of taxpayer resources. (inaudible) like myself and many other people part of our coalition testified before you tonight support this policy in a very strong policy-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) public defender office. many comments earlier tonight were focused on harms and (inaudible) commissioners carter oberstone and benedicto mentioned we dont need to deal

in hypothetical (inaudible) passed a similar law in 2020 and the (inaudible) were down or the same the year before it passed. des discussing harms (inaudible) reduce the real harms we heard so many callers discussing tonight and the calls (inaudible) her dad was pulled over is still with me and i (inaudible) are listening to these stories. i know you have responsibility tomorrow but appreciate the time you are giving this and hope you adopt policy (inaudible) already existing harm. thank you. >> caller you have 2

minutes. >> hi. good evening commissioners, my name is (inaudible) i am with the organization san francisco rising and i please urge you to adopt a comprehensive policy that both requires more data and transparency and ends pretext stops in san francisco. june 2021 my partner and i was targeted in a pretext stop. we were stop under the context of tinted windows but what happened after we were stopped made it obvious (inaudible) from the moment we were stopped and pulled over the officers questioned both. they shouldn't questioning a passenger. asking where we are going where we live and why the license on the id was so far where i was. if we have prior convictions and felonys and gun (inaudible) in the vehicle. we were both afraid

knowing the harsh realty what could happen if we answer in a (inaudible) my partner asked to exit the vehicle and did and (inaudible) my mind began going a million places and in deep fear about what was going to happen somebody who experienced losing a loved one to police violence. i sat in the passenger seat and (inaudible) the moment my partner (inaudible) heard the police got a radio call about another incident going on. (inaudible) weapon against black and brown communities to instill fear because they (inaudible) ending pretext stops help insure public safety and limit the way black and brown communities are

targeted by law enforcement. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hi. my name is lena young, long time san franciscans and traumatized from a lot of the laws that have been going on. (inaudible) no longer prosecuted, because i always had my (inaudible) because of theft they are closed and i have to drive to go to walgreens. i used to walk to a neighborhood one. same thing for these seamingly small crimes or infractions. they could create big problems just like the $950 thing.

(inaudible) once you stop doing it people will think it okay so becomes a big problem. i'm personally traumatized from having seen the problems with the laws. so, as a parent i always-i have to expectation for my kids. very small things i try to correct them so they don't go to big problems. same thing, i think everyone is capable of having good expectations for good behavior, and small things if you stop it they will learn. any person that should be a good criteria to follow. with these pretext stops i can see the problems once you start it. it is not

(inaudible) it creates havoc, so i don't have any comments-- >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> i don't have any written down statement but a lot of callers called in. i don't work for glide or non profit or public defender, just a every day san franciscans that jumped on the call late. i urge you commissioner yanez to reject this general order or this opposition that is put forth to ban these pretextual stops. howmany pretextual stops take guns off the streets? drugs off the streets? i think this is a shame and waste of everyone's time. san franciscans was more policing, they want more enforcement. (inaudible) everyone is run on this to take

(inaudible) commissioner yanez urge you to reject this proposal. this is ridiculous. all you non profits calling in probably half don't live in san francisco. i'm born and raised here. i like to mention you should look up san francisco sfpd majority are people of color so all you accusing them of being bias and racist-- [audio cut out] >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> hello. my name is susan huffman and live in district 6 and a member of wealth and disparities in the black community. we heard public comment from many people tonight who believe this dgo will lead to lawlessness and (inaudible) they all seem to have been given the same incorrect information about the

dgo. it makes me believe there is (inaudible) [audio cutting in and out] they are being used but can't (inaudible) what they don't understand is they haven't been told by the people is that for certain people the city is already a dangerous and frightening place. that is a fact. not a hypothetical or what if. ending pretext stops for these people black and brown citizens our neighbors safer. safety for not (inaudible) please adault the policy eliminating pretext stops. thank you. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> good evening commissioners. brian (inaudible) speaking on behalf of (inaudible)

civil liberty group that works mostly in the bay area and california to oppose the state of [audio cut out] no citations issued in a larjs number of these cases. there was no crimes and (inaudible) for making new stops. like san francisco, the oakland police department says they are short staffed and (inaudible) 94 percent of opd time is presently spent responding to non threatening non

violent situations. (inaudible) is not help the people of san francisco nor address the violent crimes happening in the city of scarce resources (inaudible) the chronicle cites the san francisco bay area is the second most dangerous place in the country for black folks to interact with police. only the dallas fort forth metro area. (inaudible) which frequency of officer involved shootings, racist text message and racial profile (inaudible) san francisco is getting worse as the attorney general annual report shows not better. please support ending such harmful practices. thank you for listening. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> this is julie (inaudible) district 8 resident and calling on behalf of the bar association and think as many know we have been working hand in hand with the

police department prior to the time the department of justice became involved. we worked hard to reduce racial disparities. we have one of had best general orders on bias. i attended 3 full days in bias training with the police department. we worked hard and yet it isn't enough. this is the logical next step and i appreciate and respect the commission for working with the center for policing equity, the department of justice, the mta and human rights commission to bring us good evidence based policy. ment i think there is a lot of misinformation and confusion and perhaps want to consider a faq. it is clear to commissioner yee's questions and commissioner byrne, question if a officer believes a driver committed a crime there is nothing that is going to stop the officer from stopping that vehicle. we are simply using evidence

based data to eliminate certain (inaudible) for stopping vehicles for low level infractions that are not producing evidence. so, i really appreciate the hard work that has gone into this. it is long coming. perhaps we should have done it earlier and thank you for getting blessing of department of justice and other organizations dedicated to doing this work and hope this (inaudible) pay attention to the data as it comes in and tweak it as we go. thank you very much. >> caller you have 2 minutes. caller you have 2 minutes. caller you have 2 minutes. >> can you hear me? >> yes.

>> hi. my name is barbara atard. i worked in the sober site for 40 years. (inaudible) for 15 years, city berkeley and city san jose. i urge you to adopt dgo9.1. there are serious reasons many callers discussed for cutting down on racial disparities in san francisco. this will free officers to deal with more serious issues. there are serious wreckless driving in san francisco. drivers are blowing red lights and stop signs. officers should deal with these kinds of driving issues. one section of the order that i think should be clarified is regarding bicycles and moterized vehicles

on sidewalks. i nearly been hit walking down the sidewalk. officers should deal with these issues as well. hopefully you will pass this order and hopefully you will be able to help the board of supervisors deal with the policy on killer robots. thank you for your attention. >> caller you have 2 minutes. >> (inaudible) resident of district 1 and lived in san francisco 30 years. for the callers and commissioner concern with impacting public safety. the dgo has no impact on police able to protect seniors from violence or stopping attack. it is not a slippery slope to lawlessness. read the policy and don't read on e-mail campaign making (inaudible) after reading the latest draft it seems the voice

of sfpd had more influence on the policy then community input (inaudible) working group meetings. significantly watered down. i like to see many elements from the initial draft reinserted. community input is necessary and police commission (inaudible) the community engagement and outreach is meaningless if the communities most impacted are ignored. what is the explanation not adopted vast majority of recommendation provided by various community groups? speaking specifically about recommendation from wealth and disparities thin [community. there is no representation to vast majority of recommendations by the group a work working on policing justice and (inaudible) past 7 years. this includes recommendation that exist in other cities. the elimination of bias in policing significantly (inaudible) in the draft the reason the purpose of the dgo is

first sentence, it goal of the general order is reduce racial bias enforcement of the traffic laws and curtail pretext stops. that sentence is removed. it is the reason (inaudible) was to reduce race disparities. why don't have to courage to say up front and make it clear to the police force? thank you. >> that is the end of public comment. >> that's all? okay. thank you sergeant. we will take item 9 off tonight. it was put on at ms. brown's request and she's not here tonight so we will call item number 11. >> presentation of dpa

key issue report. officer misconduct and discipline. discussion. >> mr. flaherty, thank you for your patience. >> i can find it, but

it isn't letting me access it.

>> good evening. my name is steve ferity director of audit for department of police accountability. here to present on key issue report on the san francisco police department public reporting on

officer misconduct. issued the report on november 21 this year. prior to the report issuance we presented findings on october 26 and draft of the report on november 10 and asked them to bring to the attention any errors with the report content. before discussing the key iges as the next two slides will go over high level why we did the report and scope and objectives. city charter requires audit the san francisco police (inaudible) key issue report is interim deliverable as overall audit. the intent is bring to the attention of the police commission and sfpd issues needing actions so both parties can take action before the full report is issued. the requirement we evaluated exist to help the police commission insure sfpd cooperating with dpa to prevent dismissing sustained cases and

provide public with transparency on officer bias. we identified public reporting requirements and compared to publicly available reports on misconduct and discipline for period of 2019-2021. the image oon the secrete is fromthexective summary page 1. for the purpose of presentation we will focus on the administrative code and police commission resolution reporting requirements. the reporting requirements for sfpd electronic community found internal affairs unit order 18-02 will be discussed in greater detail in the next key issue report. high level there for 4 issues in the reporting requirement. and 4 key issue discussing alignment with best practice for reporting data.

with key issue 1, compliance with reporting requirements, the image oen the screen is exhibit win in the report on page 2. first code 96 passed october 2003 is titled coordination between the police department and department of police accountability. this code chapter required sfpd provide monthly reports on status of dpa sustained cases sent for discipline determination. we found did not publish any information required by code chapter 96. november 2004 the police commission adopted resolution 97-04. there were no provisions to report sustained cases investigated and responsibility of the police commission to oversee and maintain public confidence in sfpd accountability system. this resolution requires quourtly and monthly

reporting. did not produce the quarterly reports which is also supposed to send to the bord of supervisors. also found published reports for cases with discipline determinations but not pending the chief discipline decision. these do not have the level of detail. lastly internal affairs 18-02 is policy establishing protocols for monitoring member communications like text messages and e-mails for derogatory words. this policy requires sfpd to produce quarterly and year end report. while published quarterly reports these reports did not include required information on outcomes and investigation resulting from the monitoring and did not issue year end report as required by the policy. for issue 2 this goes into the reporting requirements of code chapter 96. the code

requires sfpd publish monthly reports for discipline decision and police commission to discuss cases with the chief of police if not decided on discipline within 45 days. this requires the police commission to hold quarterly public hearings [speaker speaking very fast] on this slide we analyzed 83dpa sustained cases sent for discipline determination. these cases reported between january 2019 and july 2021 and sent between december 2021. of the 83 cases, made a discipline determination on time for 27 or 33 percent. remaining 56 cases sfpd was late in

determining discipline. the visual screen is in exhibit 2 of the report and show the age of cases not decided in 45 days. the time it took to make a decision for the 83 cases was 59 days and the overall range is 7-288 days. because did not provide the reports the commission did not have the information necessary (inaudible) issue 3 discussing compliance with police commission resolution 97-04. we found sfpd issued reports internal affair division cases but not in (inaudible) showed sustained internal affairs cases, did not publish the reports monthly and

did not include (inaudible) which is required by the resolution. also these reports did not have the required level of detail of the misconduct and use broad categories. this image is from exhibit 3 in the report which is page 4 and it contrast how the police department is supposed to summarize complaint allegations required in the resolution with the descriptions used in the reports. more detailed descriptions of the alleged misconduct (inaudible) benefit the command staff and personnel. example we found was guidance published by the united states department of justice in a publication put out about the virginia beach police department. the virginia beach police department distribute monthly report to police personnel (inaudible) protecting identity of the involved members. the

goal of this practice is to provide transparency to the department members and prioritize the opportunity for observational learning over absolute protections on the information. the last issue the report discusses is over alignment of misconduct information with best practice for reporting data. this image is exhibit 4 in the report page 5 and evaluate reports (inaudible) improve the information it does provide by aligning with best (inaudible) public and members of the department understand key issues key trends and identify relationships between data points. on the next 2 slides i slow examples what this looks like in practice in other jurisdictions. on this slide we found examples from other jurisdictions that find ways to present data so readers can

more easily understand the information and are drawings. as shown on the slide we have examples from the los angeles police department which organize the monthly misconduct reports by allegation type and penalties. organize information like this can help users identify consistency of discipline determinations. also on the slide we have example from the albuquerque police department to provide definitions of categories so the information can be easily understood by user without a background in law enforcement. two more examples. las vegas police department. (inaudible) new york police department which present data visually to show trends over time and compare misconduct and discipline across different groups of employees. so, there are challenges and opportunities we like to go over. we recognize that police misconduct is a issue about which is especially

important to inform the public and (inaudible) significant challenges. however we believe addressing the issues in the report present the police commission and police department with opportunities to streamline reporting requirements, better response of police misconduct and build community trust. in terms of needs the police commission and police department identify reporting misconduct and discipline meet the needs of the commission for considering policy changes and overseeing sfpd and dpa as well as needs of city leaders considering changes to local law and needs of the public for transparency. lastly, the police commission and police department can work together to understand resolve barriers to reporting this information so sfpd can report quality information required by the reporting requirements to stakeholders timely. just last slide here go over what you expect coming forward. going forward. just next

steps for the audit. we plan to continue to release information developed during the audit in interim reports so the police commission and police department can take immediate action on these issues. the next report is on electronic communication for bias which we anticipate released in january 2023. as for the full report, it will combine all the information we presents in the reports and provide recommendations for the police department and police commission and anticipate this report released spring next year. with that, thank you for your time and happy to answer questions you have about the report. >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you very much vice president. thank you very much to there flaherty and audit team for the presentation. as the commissioners know i was asked to be the (inaudible)

privilege working and meeting with (inaudible) we met earlier this week to discuss this so try to avoid repeating too much here. i think-i want to thank the dpa team for structuring (inaudible) i think under the prior structure woo eare waiting a long period of time and too many issues to be digestible this is a significant improvement so thank you director henderson and your team on that. this interim report is troubling. when you look at the graphic there is a legend for 3 different color keys but it was (inaudible) i don't there was a single one green. you could have done partially not complied. i think when speaking with dpa earlier this week we talked importance making sure the data is out there. first because it is required by police commission

resolution and by city law. p it is important to inform the public and these reports are not meeting those requirements. it is important to inform us as policy makers. we spent the last long number hours talking about our evidence and data driven approach and when the data is insufficient that effects our ability to clearly make policy. another additional benefit that was discussed on the call is that especially when it comes to discipline cases, doj report on virginia beach showed good data also helped dispel rumor mills among the department about discipline instead of it being i heard so and so got this you have regular flows of data so critically important that these issues be remedied and the fact there isn't a fully complies in this report is really concerning. i don't think it

would be-i'll open to chief to (inaudible) what i like to ask the chief, i love the department could itself schedule some time after the holidays both a written response to each of the 4 issues and (inaudible) for the commission that is addressing the steps the department plans to take to approach compliance on each of the 4 issues that were noted in the report so i ask that of the chief and the chair and that's all i like to say. >> thank you commissioner benedicto. thank you. this audit is very concerning and troubleling. one thing that we have already done is we have to put full attention on this full time people and that will accept one of that is made. we

have assigned a captain to be in charge of this issue to number one dig into it and two offer a plan to fix it. there are things in this report that reference for instance lapd and that is something i know a little about being i was there 27 years and what we have to do to fix the issue is administrative infrastructure in the internal affairs unit like lapd. they have a unit that is all they do. they are not operational investigators, they are not lieutenants reading discipline reports all they do is administrative auditing functions like what is mentioned in the report so our first step is we assigned a captain not the regular captain but a captain just last month

to be the spearhead of fixing these issues. it is is a serious issue and we take it seriously and commit the people to-we need look at resolutions from decades ago to see if we are in compliance. sure there are resolutions out there we may not be in compliance on and that has to be a part of the process following our units orders and our policies, if is part system and part having the ability and making a commitment to audit on a regular basis when we have not done. there is work to be done. i offer no excuses. this is my responsibility as a chief of this department and will put the measures in place. step 1 was put in (inaudible) into that position and that will get the ball rolling on addressing some of the issues. >> director henderson.

>> thank you. thank you so much steve. this is fantastic. i wanted to point out when i first came to this commission 5 years ago one of the biggest priorities for the agency from occ transitioning into dpa was clarifying expanding and professionalizing the reporting practices of the agency. i have said since day 1 the based issue there needs to be a parody for the organization in terms of how the information is shared collected made transparent and analyzed and i always said it is very difficult to do that in a vacuum for dpa individually without a comparison or without the parody from the department as well. as those obligations increased, i don't think the has been a reporting

period from the annual report to the quarterly report that there is any aspect of the reporting that is going on from dpa that has not been expanded over that time period and it is really been challenging and frustrating that there has not been a parody in the same thing and again these are not obligations that are new obligations. these are administrative codes and resolutions that go back nearly 20 years. it is not-these are obligations that have gone on that preceded chief scott but have continued and obviously i think the audit is very clear still haven't been met. i'm glad the information is out. i appreciate the attention everybody has given to wait this long especially tonight given the volume on the agenda to get and address these very important issues. i

am asking in light of the news from the audit, and in light of the seriousness of what needs to get done in order to have more transparency in terms of what information needs to be revealed not just to the commission and dpa but the public as well. we can't fix what we dont talk about and we can't talk about what we don't know. we can't begin to move forward on these important issues unless we are addressing information that has to be given to everyone. my ask is that a commissioner be assigned to the responsive action. we have someone assigned within dpa on the audit process and that is ongoing and there are audits and more reports coming that will be regulatory in the future but i am asking for a

commissioner to be assigned to these requirements or these suggestions as obligations for what needs to be done in terms of moving into compliance for the reporting obligations. did that make sense? did i say it too long? make sense? that's it. >> thank you. commissioner walker. >> thank you. thank you dpa staff for this-it is troubleling for sure and one thing i remember having a conversation in the beginning when i was starting to look at the data that we are talking about around these-all these discipline cases is how many things were being put into one category and that i really want to see the specifics of these cases so we can really

understand what they are. sometimes people need to look at all of it. making

sure we have all of it. in talking about the pretext stop issue, i don't think we have nearly enough data of the consequences of things and we need them going forward. we need to be able to have it quickly so we can make adjustments if we need. if our goal is eliminating racial inequity and how we deliver our law enforcement, we need to know if what we are doing is achieving that and if we are doing several things which ones work best. so this is a important part and appreciate chief that you are assigning people because i think this is how i make decisions ultimately. we can have ideals and all that, but i want data on what we are doing, so i appreciate

this. i support assigning somebody to it. not my call. >> i don't get to vote, but--i would if i could. >> maybe that is our absent resident. that happened before when people are appointed to things. [multiple speakers] >> wanted to say thank you to dpa thank you steve for this outstanding report. and chief, i appreciate you owning this and frankness of your response. i think this is kind of a piece with dpa's presentation on the languishing dgo where it was important to shine a light on a issue that wasn't getting the attention it deserved and

we can certainly say the department needs to do better but it is the commission responsibility to insure the department is complying with the obligations and we all as commissioners need to do better as well. because it ultimately falls on us. i don't want to ask too many questions because i know you will give a presentation next year based on commissioner benedicto's request. i just wanted to ask how much of this was a surprise to the department? i know you mentioned there is maybe old resolutions that were not complied with but some of this is 96a and so wondering-imagine the department was aware of this before the report. >> some was definitely a surprise and not offering again an excuse because a resolution

is resolution. we have to go back and make sure that we know what resolutions are active, what policies are still active and need to comply. as far as 96a, little surprising some of the data pieces in terms of the recommendation of the fullness of the data. not surprising because that is a issue we are aware of and issue that there is structural issues with that in the way we enter our dispositions in the systems we have to recall that data. for instance, since la was mentioned, la allegations are not compounded. the allegations are very different from the way we enter allegations in the system so we have to fix the system in order to have more data or have to do it by hand. right now the way we pull data based on the fields entered in the system it makes data more

complicated then meets the eye. that is a fix that will take time and thought and perhaps as we fix our systems and we get benchmark on board it isn't in the scope of work but i think they understand what our challenges are and believe they will help that contract will help us get to a better place with that very issue. other things- >> can i ask one specific thing and this is is my last question because i know the hour is late. just like slide 7 issue 2. delays in deciding discipline. this isn't about dusting off a old resolution nobody looked at in a long time t. is 96a. i imagine the department knows that 2/3 of the cases-this is a question-not decided on time and imagine there is a

reporting obligation under 96a. the pieces i find troubleling is the department is aware this is ongoing basis it is non compliance. it isn't alerting the commission it isn't in compliance. i'm particularly disturbed about that. i understand how folks there is a lot of things the department has to comply with and maybe a old resolution falls through the cracks. i understand that might happen, but 96a it is little bit hard to understand how something like that could happen. it seems someone to make a decision that we are not going to compliant and also not go toog raise our hand and inform the public we are not in compliance. >> are you talking about slide 7 ? >> yeah. >> the delays on reporting discipline we find ourselves in a position to be focused on making sure we make the statute date. the 33 of 4

date and there is lot of things that factor in into that. the goal is to get these complaints done within a timely manner whether dpa complaint or department complaint. we try to do that within 6 months. often times we are a month or 2 away from statute in terms of getting the cases signed off. the first priority and make sure we don't lose cases due to statute issues. i can just honesty i will say this, sometimes when you are behind the curve on these cases that becomes priority. even though we have statutory requirements to report by certain timelines when you are not meeting the timelines and haven't met them for years the priority becomes surviving and making sure we dont lose cases on statute issues which is discussion in this commission hearings before. it doesn't negate, it doesn't make excuse but we have to

rethink that issue in terms how me meet this with the people we have available. i will be frank, a lot of cases we are not getting done within that done but making the statute date and there probably isn't a week-every briefing i get with internal affairs the first thing on the case is when is the 3304 date or statute date to make sure we make that. we are not going to lose a case and not saying this isn't important but we are not go ing to lose a case for not reporting 45 days. we will lose a case for not making the statute date. some of staffing is and some we need to put into place better system jz people on those issues. operational lieutenant