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 approach that 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 ir 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