>> february 1, 2023. san francisco police commission meeting. >> okay. ["pledge of allegiance"]

>> all right. good evening. this is the february 1st regular meeting of the san francisco police commission. before we call our first agenda item, i'll note that i'm commissioner kevin benedicto and our president is out today and the vice-president is on route. if there's no objections from fellow commissioners, i'm asked to chair while he works through traffic. commissioner, may i speak for a minute? >> yes. >> i have no objection tonight but first off, i would like to ask city attorney if the president and vice-president aren't present, who is designated to lead the meeting? >> good evening, commissioners. so, under the rules of order, there is no body who designated.

you have a couple of options and you can have a pro tem and election to appoint someone as a pro tem or you could allow commissioner benedicto if there's no objection as i heard you say, chair the meeting while vice-president carter makes his way to the meeting. >> i have no objection tonight for the record. i would like my fellow commissioners, do any of you have any objections? >> no. >> have i no objection as well -- i have no objection as well. >> no objection. >> but the point i want to make is that the president of -- i'm not the senior commissioner of the group here tonight. commissioner yee is and it's incumbent of the president and vice-president if they are not here to start the meeting, they notify the senior -- the

agreement to go forward tonight is not president -- that the president or vice-president can designate who leads the meeting when both of them are absent. and i had a discussion with commissioner benedicto and hopefully we can resolve this in the future dgo. >> a resolution to our rules. >> yes. but as i said, i don't want to belabor the point, but thank you. >> please call the first item. >> line item one. public comment. i have to take roll. >> sure. >> all right. taking roll. [roll call] >> commissioner walker is present. >> president benedicto? . >> present. >> commissioner january these. >> here. >> commissioner besh. >> here. >> commissioner elias is absent for today. with us tonight we have chief scott from the san

francisco police department. and chief of staff sarah hawkins from the department of police accountability. >> thank you, sergeant. >> general public comment. the public is welcome to address commission up to two minutes for items not on the agenda but within the subject jurisdiction of the police commission. under rules of order during public comment neither police or personnel or commissioners are required to respond to questions by the public but may provide a brief response. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available by calling 415-655-0001 and entering code 24805476564. you may submit public comment on either the following ways and e-mail the police commission at sfpd dot org. or send to the public safety building located at 1245 third street, san francisco, california, 94158. if you would like to make public comment, approach the podium or press star three.

>> good evening, everyone. again, i'm back again concerning my son arbara murdered august 14th some here's is another year. this is a new year and happy new year, everyone. but again, i'm still without a son. this is my son arbara caspa and still his case isn't solved. i'll still out there on the battlefield everyday -- i'm still out there on battlefield and we were at a rally today for tyree nickels and i say this, you have -- it's either the community violence, or community violence or the police. what's the difference. the bullet is still the same and us as mothers are still grieving for our children. so, whether it is police killing our community

violence, there's no name on the bullet. our children are still being murdered. i still walk around with these pictures of all the unsolved homicide that are still not solved to this day, to these day, these cases aren't solved. what do we do about it? how long is mothers like myself going to continue coming here? i wish i didn't have to do this. i'm waiting for the day that i can show up in court and talk to the perpetrators and ask them why because this is what they left me. with me standing over my son's grave. i have to show this because i want people to see what i feel. this is my son, again. his body, this is what i remember. even though i remember the happy times, no mother

should have to do this. police help solve my son's case. thank you. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. this is berry saranot, can you hear me? >> yes. >> yes. good evening. i wanted to welcome commissioner elias but she's out as the new president, so but i do -- i'm glad that the top grass in the police department are there because we have a problem. at night starting at 6:00 on saturday, they blocked off all streets around union square. it took me at least 25 minutes with passengers from fisherman's wharf to get to the grand hyatt and the officers would not let me through. i thought as part of the policy, we are allowed to get through the barricades and

in fact, previous day in the morning at 10:00 to 4:00 in the morning, i was given a call by the hilton to good pickup someone to take them to the airport from the grand hyatt. it took me forever. one, some of the police officers were sleeping. two, i had to argue with them that i'm allowed to get through. and finally get through and kern street and come around sutter and i had to convince the police officer i had an appointment and i get there and it turns out the passenger left. was gone and i wasn't very far away. so i'm asking you, how do i file a claim for $60 for loss income of something beyond my control that you did not inform us that -- inform the hotel that you can't, we can't provide taxi service to the lodging establishments within the closed off area. i think it's an overreached, i mean, an over kill to walk off even a greater area of union

square than when they did it for -- for previously in december and early january for protecting the businesses from looting. this is because you thought the violent protest would cause that, so i don't know how much time i have left but we need -- >> thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> my name is buckman and i live in district 6. i read chief scott's statement on the murder of tyree nickels. he (indiscernible) response of the memphis police chief. i thought that was ironic coming from chief scott who has shown himself to be a model of delaying taxes and obstruction when it comes to the police reform. then i saw it again. what was so praise worthy about the memphis police chief action? firing those officers and having them charged with murder was the

bare minimum she could do. what would have been praised worthy if she ensured something like that couldn't happen in the first place. she could have disbanded the unit which had a long reputation for brutality before they killed a man. reacting after the fact to a threat eminent is nothing to be praised for. if chief scott wants to condemn the death of tyree nickels, he should do something to make sure nothing like this can happen in san francisco. fire the corrupt and brutal cops who don't see black san franciscans as human beings deserving a life and liberty. stop the poa from protecting those officers and most importantly, ban all minor traffic stops. mr. nickels was pulled from his car and tased during a traffic stop. it was the beginning of the brutal torture that led to his death. when we look at memphis, the question is not if something like this could happen in san

francisco, the question is when. thank you. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello, can you hear me? >> yes. >> hello, good morning or good evening much my name is david calderon and i'm calling in regard to the san francisco murder investigation, 921547783. the person is my mother, carmelita and i'm here to ask the public and the commission to please help me hold the san francisco police officer accountability as well as the san francisco police department accountable in delaying my justice. these agencies have made a mockery of me, my family, and the crimes we have survived. one example of the inappropriate tactics is by mr. eric baltara

at the spla. i requested to file a complaint with his hr department and he went ahead and created a fake extension line where he's directing only my communications to go there and he does not answer me. he is aware his investigators have missed documented the nature of my complaint. it is not fair for a survivor to come forth, share their stories, and have these agencies change the truth to fit something that it is not. us delays my ability to engage in the criminal justice system. thank you for your time and again i ask the commission as well as the public to help me. >> thank you. thank you, caller. that is the end, we have one

more? >> good evening, everyone. i'm ramona burton and i'm here again to remind you all, thank you, to remind you of my brother mark anthony. and i appreciate the caller before as well and sympathize with him but just reminding you guys that we want justice for our loved ones. thank you. >> that's the end of public comment. >> thank you, sergeant. next item, please. >> line item two, adoption of minutes. action for the meetings of january 11th and january 18th, 2023. >> can i get a motion. >> motion to adopt the minutes. >> second. >> on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? i'm sorry. for members of the public who would like to make public comment regarding line item two,

the adoption of minutes, approach the podium or press star three. and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? >> commissioner walker is yes. >> commissioner benedicto. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> yes. >> commissioner byrne is yes. >> commissioner yee. >> yes. >> vice-president carter. >> yes. >> you have six yeses. >> line item three, 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.) >> chief. thank you, sergeant young blood. good evening carter observer stone and acting executive director, sarah. i'm sorry, i had a brain fade there

and the public. as we was noted by president elias that in our last police commission meeting, i'm going to, i'm going to have the crime statistics posted and not go into detail on the crime statistic but i'll give an overall on that. our part one of our previous crime, we're down 20% over last year and this is month one into the year so we're not going to make too much of that. we rather be down than up. but we'll see how the rest of the year pans out in terms of this production but we'll do everything we can to continue to drive crime down. i want to talk about some specific incidents that happened over the last reporting period. and beginning with the homicide that occurred during this reporting period. this was on the 700 block of missouri on january 28, 2023, at 8:18 p.m. officers responded to a shots fired activation where

multiple car searches were locate -- cartridges were located and officers saw a vehicle fleeing the area and based on description involved in this crime, officers went onto the 280 freeway and the pursuit ended when the suspect vehicle was lost in the area of east more. the east more exit in daly city on the 280 freeway. personnel from the san francisco general hospital advised that a victim arrived by private vehicle and was in critical condition. that victim later succumb to his injuries and the shooting resulted this a homicide. at this time, there's no arrest and the investigation is ongoing. there was a suspicious death that occurred in the 500 block of fear in the bay view. officers responded to the hunters point naval shipyard regarding a decease person inside an abandoned building. an investigation took place on

scene and the medical examiner responded and determined that's suspicious. the victim was identified as a missing person who was last seen on january 12, 2023. that investigation is ongoing and there is a lot to uncover in this investigation to see exactly what was the cause of death but our homicide investigation unit has that investigation and investigating. there was one noninjury shooting during the reporting period, this was on january 25th at 7:35 p.m. at california and poke. two victims were struck by gunfire and the officers responded and located one individual who had been shot in the buttocks area. several witnesses were interviewed revealing a shootout occurred between the person shot and two unknown suspects who fled prior to the officers arrival and bystander was hit in the leg by a stray bullet and the individual shot was transport

and lifted in critical condition and is believed to be positionally involved in a shooting. the bystander was treated with nonlife-threatening injuries and the investigation is ongoing and the person, one of the victims is believed to possibly be involved in the shootout. so, investigation ongoing, nor arrest have been made yet on that particular case. i wanted to talk about a couple of significant arrest as well. we had two homicide arrests during this period. the first one was from a november 11, 2022, homicide. january 28th, officers in the area of 7th and market recognized the suspect from that homicide and detained him without or them without incident. at the time of the detention, a loaded and camacho sealed firearm was located and during an interview, probably cause was developed to arrest both suspects, both have san

lorenzo. that homicide was in the area of grove and larkin street, the original homicide. again, that was from november 11, 2022. and the second arrest was from a september 8, 2021, homicide that occurred approximately 6:30 a.m., the male victim at that time was suffering from a possible stab wound and was located by officers who rendered aid and the victim later succumbed to his injuries after being transported to the hospital. during the investigation, a 27-year-old suspect, san francisco resident was identified as the principal suspect. probable cause was developed and arrest warrant issued and january of 2023, the suspect was obtained by the police officers, booked in the santa clara county jail for a charge of murder related to the san francisco homicide. both investigations are still ongoing, although arrest have been made and again, anyone with any additional information or

new information on those two cases or any other cases, you can dial 415-575-4444 and you can remain anonymous if you want to report on a crime. two other significant incidents, carjacking of an elderly couple. this occurred at laguna and lumbar in the northern district. one elderly victim was pumping gase while the other remained in the victim and two people approached with a hand gun and ordered the victim out of the car and a struggled ensued over the victim's purse and victim was thrown to the ground and dragged around the gas station until she released control of the purse. that victim was left on the ground in front of the vehicle as the two people entered their vehicle and fled. one of the victims with the car. actually, with the victim's vehicles so they jumped in the victim's vehicle. the victim

sustained injuries and transported with nonlife-threatening injuries and the victim too was not injured and no arrest was made. that investigation is ongoing. the last significant event was threats to a jewish community high school, which occurred on january 26th at 2:43. a suspect toned the jewish high school and stated two people were coming to the school with ak47. there was a large amount of static on the phone. this person was difficult to hear. we have traced the -- where the call original ated from which was out of state. officers responded and conducted a search of the school with negative result. so that follow-up has been done by a special investigation's division and this is one of many that we have seen in our city and actually originally and nationally of late with these types of school threats. major events, this saturday will be the lunar new year parade. the san francisco police department will deployed heavily for the

parade as we always are. and we will also participate in the parade so that's february 4th in china town and we invite the public to attend, year in and year out. really great event and with that, i think my time has expired and happy to answer questions, vice-president. >> this might be a first, chief. i don't see -- i don't see names in the queue. late breaking. commissioner yee. >> thank you, chair, vice-president carter -- oberstone. chief, your members have been active in the chinese new year parade and keeping us safe, looking forward to another great parade too. just over this

last couple of weeks, as quite -- quite a few critical incidents that happened at our chinese community and i want to thank, i guess, the sheriff and the squad that did stop the guy from doing more. i think it was torrance in california and so, keep safe. that's all i have to say and again, to the family of -- just keep it at that. that's all i have to report. thank you. >> seeing no names in the queue, can we go inform public comment. >> members of the public that like to make public comment regarding the chief's report, please approach the podium or press star three.

>> again, i'm back again. even though i'm still talking about my child, i am still, again, i put up this picture right here, i can hold it here, you can see it. you can bring it back to -- where the police officer verses community violence. the bullet is the same. we still hurt. we still have pain as mothers. i still come here and ask for justice for my son, arbriara. i show the names of the perpetrators that murdered my child. he's laying here lifeless. lifeless. each time i look at this, i cry again. and i need to continue to do this because if i don't, who is going

to do it? who is going to do it? my son is gone. i fought for him in life and i'm going to fight for him in death. i'm his voice now. and this is what they left me with. a corps. i'm never going to have my son again but i want justice for my child, let alone all the other homicides out there unsolved. unsolved homicides, that's my request. i'm tired of climbing up on a mole in front of my house for someone to take the reward poster down. this reward poster with the $250,000 reward, people don't like this little blackface up there. and i'm tired of it. but i will keep putting it up. we have no venue for our children. where are we going to

put these? at 850. we need a venue for our children. >> good evening, caller, you have go two mings sgr /* /* minutes. >> good evening, my name is cheryl and i'm a resident of district 10. i'm calling after hearing ms. paulette brown speak. it is, she's correct. i don't understand how in the world in san francisco that so many black mothers have lost their children to homicides. and the murders have gone unsolved.

this, i don't know, we need -- these mothers need resolution to, what has happened to their children. it's not acceptable for people to be killed by gun violence and ten years later, no one has solved the crime. so, everybody is entitled to life, liberty and justice. and so, with that being said, please, please find a way to work on ms. paulette brown and other cases that have gone unsolved in the black community because it's disproportionate and give these parents resolution. thank you. >> vice-president carter, that's the end of public comment. >> thank you, sergeant. next item, please. >> line item four, dpa

director's report discussion. 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.) >> chief of staff hawkins. good evening. i too will not be talking about numbers but focus on trends. in the last two weeks, the primary allegation that dpa received is that officers failed to take a required action. that officers failed or i'm sorry, the officer behaved or spoke inappropriate and the officers failed to properly investigate. in the past two weeks we received 24 cases with a total of 52 allegations. in terms of general updates, i want to thank commissioner walker who resided over the first trial that dpa has been involved with her, so our attorney stephanie wilson wanted me to highlight that this evening. in terms of audit, dpa's currently at work drafting

the next interim report which will focus on how sfpd audits electronic communications. as a reminder, we're producing smaller, my audit director would hate me for saying this, mini audit that's will be a part of the larger audit report so they are digestible and issue focused. in materials ever outreach, dpa participated in the richmond station community meeting. we used those meetings an an opportunity to tell the public how they can file a complaint and what information dpa needs in order to investigate. we also use those meetings as an opportunity to explain our mediation program. diana from our office continues to work with lieutenant angela to do the station trainings, to go out to the district stations and explain to officers what the disciplinary process on both sides looks like and to answer their questions. so, so far eight station was completed and by the end of march, all ten district trains -- district

stations will have received it. dpa starts to present or to publish delays that we're experiencing information from sfpd. there's nothing unreceivablely delayed at this time -- there's nothing delayed. nothing to report. in terms ever audit, there were two outstanding recommendations for our original use of force audit that was published two years ago. as of today, i learned that has been closed so there's nothing outstanding in this moment for audit. in terms of dgo's, there's two outstanding issues that we wanted to highlight for the commission. one involved dgo6.18. in october, commissioner benedicto said a deadline of november 28th for sfpd to provide us with a draft of dgo6.18. we don't have

that draft so that's something we would like to push forward. second involving dgo9.03. which is dui arrest. also in october, commissioner benedicto asked the department to set up a meeting with the assigned deputy chief and subject matter expert and as of yet, we haven't been able to get that meeting started. so that's one other area in terms of policy. i know there's a lot percolating with policy but those are the two we would like to see moving forward. tonight with us are senior investigator brent who will be available if there are any complaint-related issues and our director of policy, janel keywood who will speak to you about the sparks report later on in the agenda. and that is the end of my report. and i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> just, thank you for the report. just two quick questions for me. on the use of force recommendations, was that the report that dpa did in coordination with the controllers office?

>> yes. >> can you say if you have the information available, what the recommendations were that were incorporately -- incorporated recently. >> i don't have the two. there were two outstanding recommendations and back and forth between the controllers office and documentations that those were closed and my understanding is as of today, controllers office is satisfied that the two recommendations have been fulfilled. >> great. thank you. commissioner benedicto. >> yes. i want to -- thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. i know we're separately agendizing for the deadline, i want to know on 6.18 and 9.3 and if the chief wanted to say anything? >> i'll say this. we do plan to actually agendized our full plan about how we're going to prevent this from happening and a lot of energy and time have been on

that. again, i have taken responsibility for the ones we have been late on, but we think we have a much better handle on things now and i would like to agendized that. as far as that dgo that came up in our status meeting yesterday. trying to find out exactly, the dgo of the draft is done and it hasn't been presented to dpa. there were issues that were noted and the conversation yesterday, but still it was done and it hasn't been presented to dpa, so i would ask that we agendized the full plan of how we're going to handle this. something that we've already talked about and would like to bring to the commission, so you can and the public can see what we're doing to resolve this matter and not have these things happen. and i would ask that to be agendized. >> yeah. i think it will be. it's your understanding that 6.18, there's a draft ready to be presented to dpa and hasn't. >> 6.08 is the arrest warrant

one or that -- >> 6.8. >> yeah, that one. the draft has been done. there were some delays in getting the approval to send it to dpa and the draft has been dub, so we'll get that to dpa. >> can we have that transmitted to dpa by the end of the week, chief? >> yes. >> thank you. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment for item four, approach the podium or press star three. vice-president carter oberstone, there's no public comment. >> next item, please. >> line item five, commissioner reports. (commission reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting.) - commission president's report - commissioners' reports - commission announcements and scheduling of items identified

for consideration at future commission meetings (action) >> just two updates from me. on january 11th, when we voted on dg99.7, our policy to curtail these (indiscernible), chief scott spoke about some language he circulated the day to the commission proposing changes to the dgo and specifically wanting to include language that i think accurately describes what the dgo is doing which is deprioritizing certain low level stops. i just wanted to provide the public with an update that the commission does plan on getting back to chief scott by the end of this week, early next week, at the latest with some proposed language to see if it would satisfy chief scott's concerns and you know, you know,

solicit chief scott's reactions to that, so we're working on that and moving forward on that. the other update for me and i'll be brief because i know other commissioners attended the event as well, but attended the latest graduation from the 277, i think, recruit class. it was great to be in attendance. i am very grateful for the 12 officers who are joining the ranks for the department. i wish we had more of course, like others but we grateful to those folks and just wanted to publicly congratulate them on their incredible accomplishment and congratulate their families who also undoubtedly sacrificed to allow them to go through an extensive and exhaustive training protocol, so that's it for me. >> i forgot i have to call on

people. [laughter] >> commissioner walker. >> we don't go without you. i do, i want to jump on, i wasn't able to go to the graduation. it's hard for me to get around to one or two more events on crutches but i want to congratulate those who graduated from the -- who graduated from the academy this time around and i think 12 graduated although 13 went in. but i also just want to mention and actually bring up the issue that we've committed the 30 by 30 and there were no women in our class. and it troubles me a lot and i hope that we can maybe get an update as an agenda item on what we're doing within the department to encourage recruitment of women

and to the academy. i took a lit over to the meeting and -- i took a lyft and i recruited the driver. she said before she moved to our country, she said she was on the port of puerto rico. i sent her the new recruitment video. i said i have a job for you. hopefully, we all can do that. having folks from the community keeping our community safe is really what works, so i want to commit to that, anything i can do to help, chief, but i would like to get an update on what we're doing. i have concerns that some part of our system and some part of the equipment we use maybe obstacles for women. the shooting range, i think was an issue and we have had this ongoing issue of the guns and alternative guns that

work better and i don't want to say smaller hands. there's too many jokes about that but you know, it's a reality. i mean, i feel like we need to really look at the systematic obstructions that make it harder and try and resolve those. i'm happy to help with that. i also, other the ongoing conversation the chief and i have been involved with patrol specials, i'm meeting and talking with folks who are interested from the business community in doing what they can to create partnerships and coordinating and collaborating with private security essentially that's allowed in our charter, but really using all we can to fill the gaps that kind of backs our -- keeping our streets safe. i especially was interested because there was an

article in the paper that there's been a pretty extensive grant to the alkami groups to respond to homeless issues on the streets and without training and collaboration and coordination, that's not going to work, so i really hope that we can be proactive and figuring out what training is needed and how we can, you know, be partners with these folks on the street. again, i'm happy to be a part of that conversation. and then the last thing is that, i've sent to dpa and i sent to you too, a communication i got regarding some of the technology available for monitoring and controlling, if you where wearable cameras and maintain that data. making it easier on the officers using it. i'm going to be meeting with one of the people from that company just to see what -- to get a primer before we meet. i think we're

meeting collectively and of course, you're involved. i think that's later in february with dpa. a lot of what we're talking about is how to automate and take advantage of technology and helping keep our streets safe, especially locally as we have the shortage of officers and no quick fix for that. that we really do have to see what technology is available that we can use with comfort and maintain the data and make it efficient, so i've been looking at that, so and the dgo's i've been working on, we're waiting for final draft language to go to the next step. we're all within our deadline, i believe, so that's it for me. thank you. >> thanks. i'll just say on the 30 for 30 pledge, i believe the department as part of that pledge needs to make biannual

reporting on the progress so maybe next reporting period, we can agendized it when they do their first report. that's a great suggestion. commissioner benedicto. >> thank you, commissioner carter oberstone. i was in attendance of our class and i was speaking to those officers. they were a great group. it was disappointing there wasn't women in that class. i was hard earned that four officers were buy - for bilingual officers and i want to commend the recruits elect class speaker and the new officer that was elected the class speaker blew the rest of us out of the water with a tremendous remarks about the duty that they feel and the importance of empathy in what they do and it was heartening to see and a privilege to attend

that. as vice-president carter oberstone said, we're continuing to work with chief scott to see if there's additional amendments we can make to 9.07 to bring that language and the clear focus which brings me to the next thing i want to report. it was on january 11th that this commission voted to advance dgo9.7 which is the most comprehensive policy reforming traffic stops in the country. and on that night i read a list of names and i read a note that philandro had a broken taillight and dante wright had an air fresher and all three died unnecessarily and it's, it's disheartening. we have a name to add to that list, to add tyree nickels who, for an uncorporate traffic stop, just 60 yards from

his home, for anyone who has seen any parts of the video or watched any of the memorial today, it's heartbreaking and he died on january 10th before this was a national story right before this commission acted decisively on this traffic stop policy and the loss is devastating but i couldn't be prouder to have cast my vote that night. i couldn't be prouder that this city is now on its way of joining the ranks of cities leading the nation on reform in the area of traffic stops and traffic enforcement. something that vice-president carter oberstone said, this reform like so many others whether it's banning the carotid role, it will be seen as being on the right side of history and i didn't expect to just -- to

start an early reminder of what the other side of that looks like but it really was that and so, i would offer -- we offer our condolences to the family of tyree nickels and continue to express that we're hoping more cities take aggressive and decisive action on traffic stops and traffic enforcement. that's all. >> thank you. commissioner yanez. >> thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. and thank you all for pronouncing my name a little differently. i appreciate the effort. i'm going to make my report pretty brief. i do want to recognize and acknowledge that it is black history month and it is really heartbreaking to, you know, see what has happened since the outcome of that video being

released and i think it really does underscore the importance of the work we're doing here tonight and the work we do here to try to bring more transparency to this tent and improve the outcomes of people of color in san francisco and hopefully set the standard for the nation to be able to adopt some of the directions that we take, so with that, you know, i think everyday we should celebrate the contributions of people of color, immigrants, and you know, everyone that contributes to improving san francisco and this great nation. with that, i will, i had a couple of meetings. we did have a good conversation as we were revising the 7.01 juvenile, dgo. it has been a very, very, you know, rich and very opinionated

group as we like to have because conversation and dialogue and discourse is the way that we come to agreements and i think it's healthy dialogue, so i'm happy that we are in that process and i had someone reach out to me, the president of the juvenile probation commission reached out and she wants to have a joint commission, as we're talking about commissioner walker mentioned, you know, i think it's a great success for the city to implement another alternative to responding to the homelessness issues that the city faces, along the same lines, there are many programs and there is very little centralized coordination of all these efforts is my understanding and the public has a challenge, kind of, you know, figuring out who and how to contact and i definitely do not want us to have the same experience as we move forward

with expanding tie -- diversion which is the what the juvenile division department has been tasked to do as legislation was modified to ensure that we're working towards closing down that juvenile justice center and the fact that we are intending to expand detention alternatives, i think really requires some collaborative conversations and so, i will want to request that we agendized this in the next couple of months. i'll submit the paperwork, sergeant youngblood and i will have commissioner -- president barackon and update president elias on figuring out the mechanics behind that because i shouldn't be leading that. that's something the president will lead. that's one of the updates i had. we also had a conversation with the early intervention system, dgo

revision and the folks from benchmarks. they give us a little update on the wonderful technology that the department is going to be adopted, real-time, you know, ai informed. i mean it's exciting if you're into data and how it can help us improve the world and so, i know i had requested it at some point last year, but i understand there's a little bit of a delay, so there isn't necessarily a pressing need to have the presentation now but i think the more we can communicate to the rest of the commission and to the public, the investment that's being made and the direction that of the department is taking with this early intervention system and the remodel and reboot, i think it will really benefit us, so i'd like to agendized that. and then, i think that's my report.

i have one other item that i -- that i want to check in with the chief before a -- before a general diez. >> thank you. >> commissioner byrne. >> thank you, commissioner carter oberstone. >> on january 20th, i had an opportunity to -- during the swing shift to go down to the tenderloin station for a ride along. i wanted to note that now there's a plain-clothed unit operating in the tenderloin trying to deal with the ongoing issues there. but what i also want the public to be aware of, i had an opportunity to walk with sergeant melissa chung and approximately -- at approximately 9 that evening. we were marking on second and market and an individual said this middle age woman overdosed

and she was lying on, on one of these marble benches. the person indicated that they had already applied at least one narcan to her. she looked comtoes when i saw her. sergeant chung immediately gave her another dose of narcan. fortunately, passerby came by and another dose of narcan was administered. when the third -- when the third dose was administered, the -- there started to be movement. all the time sergeant chung monitored to make sure she had a pulse. the alleged drug dealers were across the street towards 7th and mission. these merchants of death were watching us because we were interfering with

their trade by officer chung trying to save the life of another human being. fortunately, the woman was revived. the ambulance arrived. and she was taken away. this action by the san francisco police obviously is to be commended. i was privileged to watch a life being saved, but what i was disturbed about was the midnight shift that evening, i was told it would be four officers and a sergeant, this in the most dangerous part of san francisco in a concentrated area, chief, please send more people down there. that same evening between at un plaza, less than a half a block away, there was an individual who allegedly was knifed. it's clear his face was bloody. that was

within an hour of the revival. san francisco can do better than this. this has to be a priority. i understand that the number of people that have died of overdoses in san francisco has gone down but it has not gone down enough and i believe and i think -- i speak for the majority of san franciscans, we believe that this is a priority. saving lives, safety with respect. this is a priority to do this and the resources that are dedicated to such issues as union square during the festive holiday period, the parades that take place in san francisco. this needs to be a priority because what we're talking about is life and death. and to me, the individuals that's addicted deserve second chances. sergeant

chung gave that middle-aged lady a second chance. we need to do more. we need to give people more second chances, chief. put down a command thing in the thing, but something different has -- the status quo is unacceptable. it is just, it's just unacceptable. it was pure chance that we walked up that street at that time. otherwise, this poor lady would have been another statistic. i mean, the idea -- i intend to go back. this may be more resolution to go back in the evening time. yes, it's clear that during the day, the tenderloin is better. no doubt about it, chief. and the department deserves credit. but i'm ashamed to be a san franciscan when i see that in the evening time. it breaks my heart. it breaks my heart to watch those people across the street who undoubtedly one of them had supplied that lady that

almost killed her that night and please, chief, we need to do something more. anyway. that's my report. thank you. >> thank you, commissioner byrne. commissioner yee. >> thank you, commissioner carter oberstone. report back on january 20th and in san francisco china town, we had a town hall meeting. i want to thank assistant chief david lazar for reporting to our community. some of the strategies that they are looking forward to using whatever available staff they have available to them. including, i guess, the san francisco police ambassadors that are available to help us out in the district and keeping the eyes and ears for us. also, we want to talk

about, i guess, this coming sunday, there were -- there will be a lunar year celebration over in the visitation valley. everybody's welcome to come. it starts at 10:30 and ends about 5:00. it's sponsored by the asian-pacific american community center. i'll be out there and hopefully the community will join us as well. hopefully, we have great weather at that time. but i want to echo what commissioner jim byrne has said. drug use in the tenderloin is deadly. fentanyl is no joke to play around with, so hopefully, more we can -- hopefully we can do more. maybe have the urban (indiscernible) for the midnight grave shift. maybe that's something we can work on

beginning better relationships and helping out there. so, that's my report. thank you. >> thank you, sergeant. could we go to public comment. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding item -- for item five, approach the podium. >> yes, ms. brown. i want to commend the person that saved that young lady's life because not only do we die by gun violence, there's drug issues and domestic violence and child abuse, all of that is going on and our children are dying and they are homeless and there's mental health going on with these families. it's a wonder that i'm not one of those mothers that have self-medicated because my son was murdered. but i'm here and this is my therapy. this is my therapy coming here. so i commend that officer for

doing that. a lot of people would not do that. and i also just want to say, you know, anyone that have any information concerning my son, please call the tip line 415-575-4444. his case number is 060862038. that mother, the mother of that young lady will get to see her again. she has a second chance. so, i just wish my son had a second chance. with that, i thank you. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi. good evening,

commissioners. this is cheryl barton. san francisco resident, district ten. i want to also commend officer chung and all the officers that work in the most dangerous part of san francisco, the tenderloin. i, too, work in the tenderloin at a dph clinic and we see overdoses happening regularly. we also, you know, give (indiscernible) out to people in the tenderloin. but i would also like to say that someone mentioned sending more officers and help down there. there is -- there need more help in the tenderloin especially in the nighttime, i can imagine. i wanted to also

mention that. and then lastly, i heard one of the commissioners in the report say that there were no women in this last graduating class and i would like to suggest that if this was not already happening that the police department develop programs, especially in the public schools early on to create pipelines, so that or career opportunities in high school or even maybe younger, especially in districts where they are certain -- there underrepresentation of certain ethnic groups, i guess i would say, so if they could, because i think the police have a lot to offer as far as in the educational --

>> thank you, caller. vice-president carter oberstone, that's the end of public comment. >> thank you, sergent. next item, please. >> line item 6, sparks report. third and fourth quarter, 2022. san francisco police department presentation and department of police accountability presentation. discussion. >> good evening, president, sorry, vice-president carter oberstone. commissioners, scott and chief of staff, and acting

director hawkins. my name is dennis tumor and i'm a new captain of the professional standards and principle policing unit. i just want to say i'm glad to be here and thanks for having me tonight. my last assignment was with the office of equity and inclusion. i established that unit and implemented our departments racial equity and action plan. with me is sergeant daral and she's a supervisor in the unit and i just want to make sure that we acknowledge her because her efforts sometimes get overshadowed because she's working behind the scenes. and she's very important to the work that we do. so, i want to make sure that she's here to help represent that unit and to be acknowledged. going forward, our vision for the unit, we would like to continue to build relationships with the police commission and department of

police accountability and we work closely with janel. we hope to have the communication with all stakeholders involved in this type of work. we want to strengthen our communication and work with all dgo's and lastly we want to enhance our project management systems and processes to effectively meet our time requirements. as demonstrated in our report and addendum, wdu is small. there's five people and lieutenant alterfer and sergeant dural and barkley and working in the direction of executive director mcguyer. we're processing 61 revision processes. that is a lot of work for a small amount of people. this is my first time presenting

before this commission. and this report reflects my understanding of how this report should be presented. however, if other items are needed or you would like to see more items, we are definitely willing to communicate that in the future. we would appreciate any feedback that you all may have of us. with that, we'll start our report. >> okay. i'm going to go over quarter three and quarter four. from july to december 2022. it was adopted by the police commission and there's a total of five and i can read the list starting with ggo3.0 written communications. dgo3.07, department accident review board. dgo3.17 department identification cards. dgo5.10,

use of force. and dgo8.2, hostage and barricade suspects. that's adopted by the police commission. dgo's approved by the police commission for meeting conferred and there's a total of two. general rules of conduct. 208, peace officer rights. 313, field training program and the dgo manual. 524, disengagement policy. 8.0, critical incidents and notification. 11.08, grooming standards. the next two are dgo's that have been submitted to police commission to be calendared. there are two. dgo5.07, right of onlookers and 604, assault on police officers. dgo submit to chief scott for review and approval to be forwarded to the police commission are dgo11.13 and

brand-new and recommended referrals to bsu. draft approved by the executive sponsor and dpa, they are waiting to be publicly posted. we have a total of five. dgo305 weapon return panel. dgo3.12, department training plan. dgo7.04, children of arrested parents. dgo8.04, critical response team. dgo10.02, which is now been combined with 10.04 and 10.05 equipment. next group, scheduled for concurrence. we have seven. 2.02, alcohol use by members. 2.03, drug use by members. 2.07, discipline process for sworn officers. 6.02, crime scene and

physical evidence. 7.03, sex offenders. the 9.02, vehicle accidents and 9.03, dui. the next group are draft presented at simultaneously concurrence but returned for edits. 2.06, vehicle collision involving members. 6.05, death cases. 9.04, seatbelt policy. the next group are dgo's drafted presented to dpa to commence stage two of the gdo development process. we have three. dgo1.06, which has been combined with 107, duties of commanding officers and 5.06, citation release. 9.05, traffic citation control. the next group are dgo draft presented to dpa for review under the previsions of the old dgo, 3.0 process. there

are two. dgo1.01, organizational structure. dgo2.0, combined with 10.03 and 10.05 uniform. any questions about those that i have read? i'm going to continue reading. i have some that are highlighted for collaborative communication. disengagement, 5.24. critical incidents, 8.01. and general rules ever conduct, 8.02. they language. each had to be reviewed and the chief of police worked with dpa and written directive to make sure the language was consistent. the two gdo's we have working groups are

dgo7.0, juvenile and the police commission led 9.07 (indiscernible). any questions? >> so, in closing, the bottom line, the message we want to convey, we want to build into our systems. we understand that we met meet our deadlines -- we must meet deadlines or request extensions in a timely manner so we're working on improving our process to meet our demands with our subject matter experts and deputy chiefs, the office of policy and public affairs, and of course the chief of police. for? of our operational investigative units especially in the major crimes and special investigation areas, we understand the need that we need to request extensions early, if we know the deadline is going to be a challenge, so we understand that is on the forefront of our operations to make sure that we

are cumulative and that we're meeting our -- that you're communicating and meeting deadline. we want to build, continue to build relationships. we have started that process. we want to enhance our communication with all the stakeholders. we started with dpa and ms. haywood. we're starting to get a really good working relationship and we want to extend those same relationships with you all as well. and that concludes our report. we welcome any feedback or questions. >> is ms. key wood going to present? do you mind if we hold questions until we hear both or do you want to comment on this? >> sure. really quick and pardon my comments. i want to thank dpa and ms. kaywood. this is significant and i hope to everybody. we're moving at a pace that we haven't done in six

years that i have been here. and understanding that we still have much work to do with some of the untimeliness and that will be fixed and we'll go into more detail of what we're doing. the pace we're moving at is -- i don't know we've moved at this pace and so i just want to lift that up. i know we have work to do and i know it's not perfect and in many cases we've had things that have broken in times of timeliness but i want to point out the work and the collaboration between dpa and the department. i know ms. kaywood is going to present and i know we have some communication things we need to clean up and we will and i'm confident that we will, but i want to publicly thank, not only the members of our department head, but ms. kaywood in particular because we're -- in my opinion, we're doing good policy work together. hawkins and henderson and kaywood and others and i'm sure i'm missing names and i want to lift that

up. we're going to take responsibility for our shortcomings but this pace is beyond anything we have seen in my six years here and i don't know if the department has ever moved this quickly on dgo's like we're doing right now. we'll fix our problems but thank you to everybody for getting us to this point, thank you for allowing me to say that. >> actually, staff hawkins, do you want to go now. perfect. >> it's brief. i want to echo what the chief said. thank ms. kaywood and the department and the people working on the projects and welcoming new people. i think it's an effort and the commission is involved and we really appreciate it. there's one thing with this particular report that i want to talk about and maybe just highlight right now and maybe we can have the conversation separately, which is the prioritization of the foot pursuit dgo and its categorized as low priority. that might be because of timing or other issues that are important but the way it reads to the members

of the community, a low priority dgo is not feasible or warranted. and i just can't let that stand on the record because i think, and i think the chief agrees because we have met and spoke about it. it's work that has been talked about for years. we started it, we startedle conversation with the training division -- we started the conversation with the training division before we recommended a formal written policy, so i would hope we can talk about either using different language that's -- it is a medium priority timing wise, we have a plan for that, as opposed to labeling in that way because i think right now we're focused on traffic stops as the issue but that recommendation came out of another ios and other best practices so for the community to see it as low priority, to me, it's concerning. >> thank you. chief, i see your name back in the queue. no, okay. we'll hear from

ms. kaywood and reserve our questions. thank you for the presentation. >> good evening, vice-president carter oberstone, commissioners, chief scott, and chief hawkins and members of the community. i'm janel kaywood, i'm the director of policy of the department of police accountability. i'm here to present a summary of dpa's policy work for the third and fourth quarter of 2022. as always, i'm happy to be here and really excited to share some of our work with you.

sorry, guys. in the third quarter, dpa recommended that the police commission pass a resolution directing the police department to publish a calendar of meeting and provide the status update on nonconfidential information of dgo and confer and although they are confidential, we believe it should be transparent to the public. the third and fourth quarter, dpa researched and provided 92 recommendations on 17 dgo's and shout-out to my colleague, germane jones who has been wonderful to work with. fun

fact, our yearly total is 142 recommendations on 22 dgo's. agree with chief scott that this is a very fast pace and we are putting out more policy that has never happened in the history of sfpd since 1994 when these dgo's have been written. we jointly wrote dgo5.07, rights of on onlookers with captain tom with the training division who is wonderful to collaborate with. he's talking tonight and dpa can't say good things enough about captain. we sat down and wrote the dgo together. i want to give a shout-out to the director unit. director henderson reported on dgo's that stalled. we were frustrated and

i think it's important, i've said this before, but it's important for dpa to be unafraid when there's problems and we need to speak out when good things have happened and i can't say enough good things about how written directors have stepped up in the third and fourth quarter. kinks need to be worked out with 3.0 and getting drafts transferred back and forth and public comment but written directors is the framework that holds it all together and they just have done phenomenal work, so on behalf of, on behalf of dpa, i would like to thank lieutenant eric, captain dennis tumor who has been a wonderful addition to written directives and sergeant joel. i agree she's a bright light in the department and she's a joy to work with. i would like to thank officer walker barkley and gloria. and

there's more but those are the ones i work with on a daily basis. i wanted to say something. this the third quarter, dpa collaborated in the human rights commissioners sessions on stops. we have been working on this for several years. we're proud of our work. we're proud of the policy that has been put together and we look forward as it progresses through. next. dpa also recommended that sfpd form a working group with its technology unit and dpa and traffic stop data experts to make sure the stop data, the departments turning out is up-to-date. that their systems are up-to-date and the data they are collecting is accurate and could be validated. i believe oliva, the police department's director of policy and public affairs, she and i have discussed this and we agree it's

an important step that needs to happen. next slide. foot pursuit. i'm excited about the this policy. thank you chief of staff, hawkins for, i would put this in the highest, after traffic stops, the most important policy that's coming down the pike, in the pipeline. dpa collaborated with top captain tom harvey and the field tactics to write a draft for pursuit policy. this policy emphasizes sound tactics which are essential in these time compressed rapidly evolving situations and the overarching goal of the policy is to conclude incidents as safely as possible for the pursuing officers for the fleeing person and the public. and this policy reinforces already excellent training that's going on within the department. so, it really focuses on tactics and we want

to thank again, captain harvey, lieutenant mike, lieutenant andrew, sergeant justin, sergeant john, officer pat woods, for lending their expertise and for their ongoing openness working with dpa. we have build a trusting relationship and -- we have built a trusting relationship and sort of a dynamic where we can be truthful with one another and really, we're really able to write good policy together. we have worked on the use of force together and we have the utmost respect for captain harvey and the fto unit. the next step is public comment. we look forward to hearing from the officers in the community alike. we'll let everyone know when this happens and we expect it to be robust. thank you. that's all i have. are there questions for the department or me? >> i have a couple of comments.

one question. so, sorry. epa and ms. kaywood presented last, thank you for the presentation. this is a comment, not a question. i just really wanted to recognize the two recommendations that dpa made because i think they are both very well taken and they make a lot of sense, i think having open session check-ins on the calendaring of meetings that are happening and meeting confer is with the increased transparency in the confer process that this commission has undertaken in the last few months. i just think that's a good government recommendation that we should adopt. and i think the second recommendation about having, you know, an outside peer review or working group panel to evaluate the reliability of our data is another commonsense reform and

hopefully we can get people to sign up for that and assuming we can, i think that we should implement that, so thank you. for department, i had one comment and one question, so thank you both for the presentation and captain tumor, you said this is your first time presenting, so welcome. i wanted to commend the department on the sparks report. i know that in my colleagues were a little critical of the formatting of the report and that wasn't always clear what the status was, the way it was indicated. the current format is incredible improvement and the status is very clear for every dto and it's very well organized and easy to follow. and i appreciate the addendum too, so we're getting a heads up about what's coming down the pike so i wanted to recognize that and say thank you. the other question i had, captain tumor, you

mentioned there's five individuals assigned to a written directive's unit and i'm curious, do all -- are all of those folks spending one hundred percent of their time on directives or do they have responding outside of dpw? >> so the officers, sergeant harel and barkley, we have a staffing shortage so they are sent out to do other duties besides the directive units but when they are here, that's their primarily duty but there's always an opportunity to go out and help patrol and other things we need to get done as an organization. >> great. thanks for that. commissioner benedicto. >> thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. just a couple of comments. i think echoing a lot of what have been said by both the department and dpa. i

really do want to commend the written directives unit for their and dpa for the excellent work here. like it has been said, there's deadline issues that we want to sort through but that's not to undercut the work done through written directives and the dpa of i want to echo what captain tumor said and commend sergeant harel, commissioner yanez worked with her on our very vibrant, working group meetings on the juvenile orders, dgo7.1. there's opinions in the rule and sergeant harel is taking notes and pulling up things live and managing a routy teams call with people in person and it's just, it's tremendous work and that's a fraction of what we see. so thank you for presenting to us. and i also want to do commend my fellow commissioners. this body has

been extraordinarily active on moving on the dgo's and under the leadership of president elias and assigning dgo's to shepherd through. i have spoken with the chief before because we were working on reforms around the time that the blue ribbon panel report came up. i pulled up a copy of that report and there was a five -- there was a two-year period where five dgo's was passed and that was considered an improvement over an extended period about inactivity and one year where one dgo was passed and at that point the vast majority of the departments general orders were from 1995. it's -- it's important to see how far this commission and as this department has commented, they were called occ in that report, the predecessor agency. there's been a tremendous amount of process and the speed and

effectiveness of the commission and the department and dpa is something that all three entities should be proud of. >> chief scott. >> i just, since she's in the room i wanted to give credit and thanks to ms. (indiscernible) from public policy and public affairs who actually helped direct mcguire and dwu work on the reports that you have commended so i just want to give her credit and acknowledgement because she's in the room for another presentation but ms. dee helped director mcguyer develop this map. so thank you. >> commissioner benedicto. >> i forgot, i wanted to echo what acting director hawkins said. i strongly think the foot pursuit should be a priority and written directives into this department. i'm glad to hear ms. kaywood report that a lot of what it is is sort of formalizing what already tactics

are present and what the unit is doing so i would like to see a foot pursuit policy before this commission, you know, it would be great to see it this year or as soon as possible this year once that can be finalized. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. i'm going to echo the sentiment and the, you know, of all the work that you all have done, i know it's not fun to sit back there and document commas and document feedback on things that seem right, but without structure, there really is chaos usually, right. and knowing that the work that is happening here is a collaborative effort, it just makes it so much easier to enter those spaces knowing that there are folks that are carrying their end of the bargain as we're raising issues and i think together we're going to get to

that place where we have, you know, transformed these dgo's to provide clarity and direction because ultimately, it's so officer -- it's the officers in the field. this is mr. bible and how they do their work and it needs to be underscored how important this effort is, so i really commend you. i don't know what we can do to support you more as far as obviously staffing is a challenge everywhere, but i really want to encourage the department to keep investing and expanding this effort because as we move forward, we'll continue to require this heavy lift, right. there's still a lot of stuff that needs to be addressed and i think that the fact that there is such congenial relationship building happening, i think it's going to make the next couple of years a lot easier so i thank you from the deepest part of my heart.

>> may i be heard. i just wanted to add something quickly. i too appreciate the clear sparks report that the department prepared. there's one dgo that was omitted from the update and that's the probation and parole policy. we understand it's in the holding pattern because we're dealing with traffic first but i don't want that to drop off the department and the commissions radar. >> thank you. just one last question for me for the department. a few months ago, we heard a presentation about kind of structural reorganization that involved dwu. i confess i don't remember all the prongs of it but dwu was moving under some, was move nothing the chart? -- somewhere shifting and is it happening?

>> i'll answer that. it hasn't happened yet and the plan is to move it under the chief of staff wing the department. we have not made those hires yet and all actuality, commissioner yane z and our police commissioning presentation to the commission raised some issue that really made me think harder. part of that process was going to be to move a commander to chief of staff and commissioner yanez, is that right? thank you. >> you brought up needing to have stability as well and the community engagement part of our tent and right now, that commander -- part in our department and that commander is in that position and the only way to make that move is remove that commander. i took that to heart because i know how important that is as well. there's other ways to get at, do what we're going to do but use a professional staff position so that's the direction we're headed and we still need to hire

that person but that's the direction we're heading but i do want to thank you for putting that back on the forefront in terms of, everything we have invested in community engagement -- the commander in that position, he's doing a fabulous job and has momentum and we need some stability in this department, so that's where we are with it. >> thanks, chief. understanding that you can't predict hiring will be finalized but do you have a sense for how long it will take to finalize the structural changes or organizational changes? >> if we -- we've made it, we've posted it outside the department. if we make a move inside the department, it's a lot quicker and we really want to make these moves, the department's economic forecast is not the greatest and sometimes when that happens, hiring authorities get frozen and we need to move on it quickly while we can, so we

don't have anybody in the pipeline right now but there's a possibility that position can be filled internally as well. if we go in that direction, it will be quicker. >> great, thank you. >> thank you to the dpa and the department for the presentation. sergeant, can we go to public comment. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item six, approach the podium or press star three. commissioner carter, there's no public comment. >> great. next item. >> item 7, discussion on the military equipment and robots at the request of the commission.

>> good evening, commissioners. how are you? this is the first time i have been in this meeting. and the meeting i have bunch has been virtual. this is the first time i'm at the podium. i work with legislative compliance and special projects for sfpd and i'm presenting on sfpd's compliance with ab41, which also is known as military equipment policy. so we'll be discussing that. next slide, please. california assembly bill 41 is in 770 and 775 and requires law enforcement agencies in california to obtain approval from the applicable governing body of a law enforcement use of equipment policy as specified by ordinance. in san francisco we have a district attorney and sheriff's office. the governing body is the board of supervisors. ab41 requires the law enforcement agency too put in their use policy how they use

all of the equipment that is defined by ab41. ab41 defines the equipment itself as military equipment. it requires the agencies to again put it in the use policy, tell the members of the public how that equipment is used and there's other things we have to report, the fiscal information, the training requirements, the governing statutes, that has to be in the use policy and you have to go through a public process and receive public comment and the governing body gets to determine whether you can continue the use of that equipment. our ordinance was signed by the mayor december 22nd and it's effective date was january 22, 2023. so it has been active for seven business days and it also mandates an annual review by police commission and board of supervisors. it also set a time clock for when the use policy had to be submitted to the governing body and how long they had to approve the use so the

agency can continue use of the equipment that it had in its possession. with the mandate of the manual review, the review, we'll come to the police commission to discuss the annual report. once it passes through police commission, it goes to the board of supervisors and the board of supervisors gets to determine whether the department was compliant with ab41 and they also, they decide the board of supervisors decide whether we can continue using the equipment that's listed in the policy or whether they want to rescind our ability to use. next slide, please. so ab41 went through a public process. between the date of submission which was in may of '22 and final approval in december of '22, there were 11 public meetings and three were full board. the department captured over 43 policy recommendations through the public hearing process. so, with this public hearing process,

with the governing body, the constituents contacted their district supervisor and express their concern and the district supervisor could come to the department and discuss concerns with us. between the public hearings we had, we met separately with supervisor chan, mendelman and peskin. we put the recommendation grid on our public website and it's available on the board of supervisors website. and just for current status update, the board of supervisors, while they did approve it and it's in effect, they have duplicated the file and sent it back to rules so rules committee had an opportunity to rehear the proposal and over this calendar year, they could potentially change our uses or revise it in any way or keep it as-is, but it has been sent back to rules and it's up to the rules president, i guess, president of the board

of supervisors to calendar it. it has not been calendared yet. so, as it stands we have an effective ordinance. so, ab41 and our use policy required sffp to report how the ab41 define equipment is used and all the equipment was acquired before january 2022. this round was simply to allow sfpd to continue its use of its current inventory. we were not requesting any new funding or acquisition of new equipment. it was everything we had in our possession prior to january 2022. there were a couple of substantive changes. the authorized use of the long range acoustic device was changed, so l-rad have a capability to produce a higher power sound wave which can cause disorientation. through that

capability, we can't use it in that way and used as a pa situation for some circumstances. there was a prohibition with using force with the robots. the ordinance adopt impacted the tactical unit order so we'll update them to capture the substantive changes and update them. we also do have redact some portions and make sure they are posted so we're working on updates on tactical unit orders. next slide, yeah. ab41 defined about 15 different categories of equipment. in the legislation and in government code 3375. our department met nine of our categories. these are the nine categories that met the inventory we had. so, we have remotely piloted powered ground vehicles known as our

robots and armored carrier which is bearcat and reaching the apparatus attached to the bare cat. and those are considered under ab41, reaching apparatuses, they are explosive in nature and grenades and pepper balls and specialized firearms less than 50 caliber with exception of service weapons and projectile launch -- these are our bean bags and rubber bull enters so they are considered under ab41. i'm going so show a short -- >> when they think about killer robots. they are picturing

terminator. but what the police department is talking about here are bomb disposal robots and sfpd want to put explosive on the robots and explode the device. they would use this in a case where the person is not (indiscernible) and a threat to the public and the department and they have no other way to resolve the situation. in 2016, the dallas police department used a bomb disposal robot to kill an active shooter suspect who shot and killed five dallas police officers so this proposal has been in the works for months now. then last week, the board of supervisors took an 8-3 vote to approve it with three members in decent and walton, supervisors preston and supervisor hillary ronen so the main argument again this policy is it will make killing easier

for the san francisco police department and this is the symptom of the board of supervisors giving sfpd too many tools in the first place. >> san francisco is not a war zone. so if police shouldn't be trusted with tasers, they sure as hell shouldn't be entrusted with killer robots. >> they say the department should use the tools they need and we shouldn't take away this from the police tent when it could save lives. >> in extreme circumstances when many lives are in danger, and ims other, but have you seen what's happening in this country. >> with the san francisco police department has said -- what the san francisco police department said, it has never faced a situation to use deadly force with these robots and hopes they don't have to. they want the tool in the toolbox so they can use it if they have to.

>> [end of video] >> let me show what we actually have in our inventory, the types of robots we do have that tactical has access to and in the policy, it has been training -- suspicious device assessments to get visuals on suspects or gain awareness in clearing buildings and there was discussion that came up during the process during the hearings where there was concern about ia capabilities and they don't have ia capability and they are remote control. they don't have wifi or any local area network, passwords, there's no way to

hack it. your roomba at your home can be hacked before this can. they are attached to a client id and your wifi like your ring camera. these are remote control and they don't have that ability. those questions came up so we want to make sure you know they don't have the capabilities and the discussions during the rules hearing process was around use of force. not necessarily focused on lethal force as the legislatives was interested in and taking away the ability to use robots to deploy chemical agents. when we describe what the use of force was and this body is more familiar with the terms and the force options than our governing body so the conversation was starting from scratch to explain 501 and use of force options. and when we were able to explain to the legislatures that use of force and use of force option to deploy chemical agents was a use of form, they didn't want to prohibit it. so, that they kept

in the policy, that ability but did want to make an expressed prohibition for legal force. that's where we are right now. we do plan, if we are going to go back and again during that process, our proposal using lethal force at all with a limited circumstances. obviously, we would adhere to all current dgo's but we added the extra layer of and a chief or assistant chief of operations approval before using this particular tool in that force option. so that was our initial proposal. again, it got all the way up to full board. it was approved and additional discussions happened. so, we are where we are and right now, we do still have the ability for use of force for chemical agents and legal force. next slide. here are some frequently asked questioned during process. we wanted to cover them in case you have these questions today. are

there plans to expand the current inventory? so this is seven business days old. this has been effective for seven business days but right now, we're working on just making sure that this policy that we get our tactical unit orders up-to-date and we post those to combuy with ab41 and the ordinance that has been approved. and just so you know, any and all equipment that is covered by ab41 that's defined by ab41 would have to go through this process. so if we were interested in purchasing a new piece of equipment that fell under this category, we would create a use policy and must be submit it to the board and have it approved by ordinance before we could even procure. and have it go through calendar. that's the process if we were to expand. right now, there's no current plans to expand. other plans to replace current inventory. we have plans to maintain current inventory. so, we have, we will have to

purchase, i'm sure -- everything that's in the inventory, we still will maintain. we have to determine what is standard issue service weapons ask those are considered basic equipment supplied to the department and used during a standard shift. the specialized units may have certain equipment that isn't considered basic because there are specialized unit and it's just for their unit but everything that is the majority of the department uses during their shift is considered standardized equipment. what is the current cost including personnel for maintenance of the existing ab41 equipment? this is in these policy, if you look at it. each category, we have to say how much it cost to maintain each piece of equipment. how much each cost when we first purchase it so it comes to $111,000 a year to maintain the

equipment itself. we don't currently capture a cost of personnel to maintain. but if you're asking if there's a question about the personnel in opts, we could get that back to this body. opts will maintain their own equipment during their shift and they don't code out into a different code while maintaining their equipment so if we send something out, we can track it. it's $111,000 a year for maintenance. what -- what's the department's current position on using unmanned remotely piloted ground vehicles for lethal force? so we showed you the video to give you, so you'll get up to speed. after seeing what happened in dallas, i think and when any department has an opportunity to use a tool verses an officer to stop a

prolonged attack, something where there are casualties happening and people are still being attacked, a department will prefer to send a tool. we don't want to send our officers into something that's active and going. and again we're talking about prolonged attacks. since we've had the robots since 2010, we haven't seen anything so i can't give you real examples that happened in san francisco, that's why we're looking at this one in dallas, right. so we have this one example to point to where it was effective and it did stop the attack. and when you're looking at these remotely piloted vehicles, they are probably more precise than any of our options and we won't accidentally get a bystander, or hit another vehicle, this will go directly to whoever the gunman is in this prolonged attack. i think we're still interested in resubmitting our proposal, but right now, we have an approved ordinance that has a use of force option and in all

of the times that we have had it, we've never had to use it in the way we proposed through the process but again if we have the option, a tool verses an officer, we would prefer a tool to send in a prolonged attack situation. and there's one last question. how long has the department owned ab41 equipment? so the park -- some of the equipment was purchased in 1991. that's our command vans and the last day of equipment we purchased in 2021. so everything captured in our policies between 1991 and 2021. so, we have some pretty aged equipment which we would like to maintain now that we have the approval to continue the use and that's where we're at. so, we also didn't put in the slide but now this is effective, we're planning on joining some of the captains in their monthly meeting and talking to community members about this ordinance that is still in effect and take the

comments, take up questions and hopefully give them some education on how this impacts their district and nothing has changed in how we use the equipment. the thing that changed mostly is public awareness. these were tools that maybe didn't -- we didn't have them posted on our website. we didn't have them posted on the legislatures website but now they are. that's the biggest change with ab41 compliance is the awareness awareness and wit i'll take questions. >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you, vice frez carter oberstone and thank you -- vice-president carter oberstone. thank you for the presentation. a couple of questions and you said since the fail was duplicated, the rules committee haven't scheduled hearings. have you been apprised if they intend to in the future or do you have information about future hearings. >> the last i heard the committees were assigned and i haven't heard action after that.

>> okay. my question are about robots, we'll call them robots since that's easier to say. after looking at this report, there's six robots that the department has, the remote 5fa and remote f650 and rnos and the (indiscernible), the dragon runner and the i-robot first look. under the department's original proposal to authorize legal force in extraordinary circumstances, which would be authorized as lethal force options? >> we hadn't actually appointed a particular robot for that use. it was just through the starting the process to make sure we could confirm the use, right. but when you're looking at the presentation, i can tell you, it was already closed, but it would probably be the remote tech five, six a or the palon or the

dragon runner. >> okay. and while the policy contains an expressed probation being as lethal force options and this is permitted as -- which of the six robots are permitted in the immediate force options? >> these are the ones that could deploy a chemical agent. we have to get back to you on the details but it's the five, the f-6a or the f-5a. really i think any of them that could move it close to the area. >> okay. >> but i can check with tact and get back to you. >> is there one unit of each -- i'm sorry. i see there are numbers. there's 17 in total. okay. that answers that question. i know obviously, fortunately we've never had the

need like you said, to deploy robots and legal force option. do you know how often they are deployed as a force to deliver the chemical agents? >> that's a great question. we don't have the number now but in the annual report, we have to report what the deployment was. you'll get that in the annual report and we'll creating a tracking system so we can track all deployment and that's required in the use policy to be sent up to the assistant chief of operations for tracking but right now i do not have that information but we will in the annual report. >> the annual report and the use is as of this calendar year, right? >> from date of adoption, so -- >> the dae -- the date of adoption. you don't have this information in front of you but wanting to see how often these are used. is it possible to ask tact, i imagine if they were using it for force, it's

obtainable option to see per year or over a five-year period how often they are used. is it once a year or once every two years. any number would have different implications for the way we consider this policy. >> absolutely. >> those are all my questions. thank you. >> commissioner yanez. >> thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. just a couple of quick follow-up questions. i know you explained how the maintenance is taking place during, you know, the standard kind of, i guess, on-duty officers duties, right. and you said there may be a way to capture how much time is being spent and if they were to document it separately. >> i think for clarification, there is no separate code to track officers maintaining their own equipment. >> got it.

>> that's during their normal work shift. it's the expectation to keep your weapons clean and working. it's not a separate way to track that because that's during normal hours. >> for the other -- the robots and these other kind of tactical weapons that are not necessarily standard issue equipment, is there a unit that manages the maintenance of those. >> the special opts. >> it's those special ops officers that's in each unit responsible for the maintenance? >> right. >> this may be a question for the chief to consider, are any of these operations or maintenance kind of requirements that can be done by non-sworn officer? >> i don't know for sure, but what i do know is that they are able to maintain these equipment

and if they had to send them out for something specialized, many of these are aged so we're constantly in the process of making sure we keep them maintained so we don't have to replace them. but i do believe that they are able to send out certain pieces of equipment if they have to but they do maintain them and they have been trained to maintain them. basic maintenance. >> right. i would encourage us to consider, you know, given the limited staffing that we have that if there are some of these operations that could be shifted into non-force staff, we're going to save, you know, time for folks out on the field, obviously, so that would be one thing i would recommend i look at moving forward. and another question that i had. there is an expectation to document, you know, sub-machine guns and anything less than 50 caliber because that's a standardized weapon and you explained that

specialized units have different type of arsenal. is that the standard weapon for those units and are those carved out and not reported in this? >> those are the ones that are reported out on this. so the patrol weapons and rifled are not included in this. those are considered standard issued. so ones that are handled by tact and special ops are captured in this policy. >> got it, thank you. and moving forward, i know that the majority of the responsibility will sit in the board of supervisors for authorizing any extension, expansion of the arsenal or modification of that arsenal, is there a plan to, if we get to that point, chief,

have a more kind of robust conversation in this base before we propose any modifications to the standard issue or to these other weapons that we have so that we are being, as open and transparent about these proposals, not that this doesn't have -- not that the board of supervisors isn't going to be diligent about their process, but it is something that obviously this commission is very interested in and we feel the questions and we feel the feedback, so i would expect that we do have some type of process here. i know that that isn't an expectation of that -- of the ab law -- >> we carved it into our use policy. it wasn't required by ab81, we did put it into our use policy that there be public hearings at the police commission. >> okay. good. >> prior to submission of the annual report to the board, so it's prior to completion of the

annual board, annual report. we'll put a draft in front of this body to discuss all of the criteria that's required to the annual report which again is how many times was it deployed, why was it deployed? what was the result of the incident? there's questions and what was the, how much did it cost to maintain? so there's several questions that are required in the annual report. and so we put a carve-in this particular use policy to, before we finalize the report, to come have at least one public hearing, at least one. that means this body can request more than one. we have open discussion and invite the public to ask those questions and then maybe even capture whatever concerns this body has and that has to happen before we submit the annual report to the board of supervisors. >> great! >> can i just add, i'm sorry, i didn't request to speak but one thing too, i want the commission to know that we're very, very

thoughtful about not conflicting with the go's. we've held a position in the department and i believe the commission at the time, that the commission is divided that governs our policies and when ordinances come, we understand the board has a right to do that but we're very thoughtful about not circumventing or conflicting with the dgo and we'll refer to the dgo in terms of the policy on issues and that retains the commission to do what it does, so we're very thoughtful about that and there's some language we have to address that's not in the dgo and we're thoughtful about not circumventing the dgo. >> thank you. i know this is new. this is another assignment on your big plate, so i think you're doing a wonderful job and you just kind of upped the

ante-- for the presentations. >> president byrne. >> does the san francisco police department have machine guns? >> machine guns? >> yeah. >> automatic weapons? >> we have specifically put in this policy the types of specialized firearms we have. so, maybe not using that terminology. >> well, you know -- [multiple voices] >> automatic rifles you see in the military. >> they are listed submission guns and semi auto rifles. >> automatic ones. >> my next question, what is a breaching apparatuses that's explosive in nature? what exactly is that? >> i can tell you. it's in the policy. i'm going to find it here. >> sorry. >> we have them listed in the use policy. we have an energetic breaching tool, ballistic round.

it's described in the use policy what they are and why they are used. so, sorry. >> a generic term you hear in policing is flash bang. >> they are underneath. grenades are underneath. >> it's used generically but there's different types of breaching devices but anything used to breach a door, we know what they are but the public refers to those -- >> they are not hand grenades, no. there's no, like, okay. so they are not designed to splatter and -- >> correct. it's designed to -- they are designed to breach and not do harm to people's body. >> we do suspicious packages so it's not just doors but anything that needs to be opened but we do have some breaching

apparatuses used to open up packages. >> how many armored personnel carriers does the san francisco police have? >> we listed one. that's our bearcat. >> why would the san francisco police department need an armored personnel carrier? >> i'll take that. >> mind resistance too. >> i'll take that. basically, this is armored vehicle on a truck platform. and so the reason for that, if there's -- if there's a situation with an active attack, particularly a shooter, and officers have to approach that particular location, that vehicle is armored so they can do that safely. >> right. i understand the need for an armored one but the idea it's mind resistant. i mean, i have never heard of the roads of san francisco being mined. and the need -- >> so --

[multiple voices] >> under the category presented by ab41 and it's a challenge, right, is that ab41, the legislatures that created that, they are the ones that determined what the equipment was. and it doesn't nicely or neatly align with law enforcements understanding of what military equipment is. so the way it's listed is it's mine resistant or it's an armored personnel carrier. >> hopefully, we don't have mine resistant. i understand the need in an active shooter that you want something that bull enters will come off of, but the idea of paying for something that the streets of san francisco are mined -- [multiple voices] >> it's an or category. >> does our one -- is our armor personnel -- >> i believe believe it's mine resistant. >> mine resistant means something different. you can have armor undercarriage and all of that. i don't believe that and i'll verify that but i'm

sure it doesn't. >> you understand my point. the san francisco police department is not a military. and any perception to the public that they are a military strikes a different connotation because the san francisco police department is supposed to be a part of the people of san francisco, not an occupation force and that sort of use of something like that has visions of being a military going into a city. understood. >> i certainly and i doubt that i have much decent on this. i think that most people would agree with me that we need to be open to the public because we're a part of the public. we're not -- we have nothing to do with and that's why it's a sensitive issue. we can talk about robots all we want but the idea is that we don't want to militarize the

san francisco police force anymore than it is because i think that's important for community participation, community involvement. >> i understand and we will verify that but i'm quite sure that these are as we have described and not meant for mines and in a battlefield situation. >> because if there are, i would ask the board of supervisors to donate it to the military and ukraine. they are much more valuable there than here. thank you. >> all right. seeing no more names in the queue, thank you so much, ms. de's and sergeant, can we go to public comment. >> members of the public that would like to make public comment for line item seven, a press the podium or press star three. >> hello. i do want to just comment and say i agree with commissioner byres. sitting here, i was afraid of this whole process, the whole sound of it

sounds very scary and it does sound very military and i, for one, don't know where the public has heard of this. this is the first i have heard of this. i have texted a couple of my siblings and i have never heard of ab842 so if there's -- ab841, if there's going to be public comment, i would want people to have a better understanding of what the intention of this ab841 is, thank you. >> so again, just piggybacking off her, i was speaking about supervisors saying this is not a war zone. and it isn't a warzone and just like you said, if they can't be trusted with tasers, how are they going to be trusted with a machine like this? and i was saying, and it's still

operated by a human and your presentation said it killed five police officers. what about the community? i thought that presentation should have had more than five police officers, you know, it's almost like they are just protecting the police. and i thought, what if this was in a bank. i could see if it was a bank being robbed and you know, and the shooter is in there killing everybody because he can still kill everybody. you bring that taser in there, it might as well kill himself and everybody in the bank. so, how is that going to hold? if it was holding hostages, so what good that? i think this thing is to also, it's going to be used on people of color. it is already happening. it's going to be used on people of color. i'm a person of color. and if this is automatic -- you know, well, that's not going to -- it's

going to be an automatic gun but if the person had an automatic gun, how are you going to stop them? if it's mental health, are you going to shoot a mental health person? what about that? what do we do about that? thank you. >> good evening, callers, you have two minutes. >> (indiscernible) from district ten. i think that the president should have continued this item. it's too soon. it's too soon. the videos we have seen recently. sorry, commissioner walker, i'm sorry if i'm bothering you. we don't want to hear about this robot and military equipment. do we not

know there was a vigil today? i mean, i couldn't believe the chief was there. he should be working on reforms immediately. that should be the priority of this commission and you can always vote to redo your agenda for the night or cancel or something, but this is too soon. it's triggering. it's painful that you're discussing which ways to kill us, how maybe an officer could be protected by having a robot kill us instead of the officer. bringing in military equipment. come on, now. have some sensitivity to people. you know, i really feel like black people are 3/5 of a human at this point. we're human beings and you're discussing how to kill us. what kind of machine guns do you have? i mean, try to think about the black

mothers. you got one sitting in front of you. think about her! let's not talk about this stuff right now. i don't know what is on the rest of your agenda but work on reform, reform, reform. this police training -- get police training so we don't have a big incident in san francisco because there's officers scared to do their job. >> good evening caller, you have two minutes. >> my name is susan beckman and i live in district six. let me read from the text of ab41. legislature signs and declares all the following, a, the acquisition of military equipment in our communities adversely affect -- impact the public safety and well fair including risk of civilian death and risk to civil right, civil liberties and civil and psych

logical well-being and significant financial cost. military equipment is more frequently deployed in low-income black and brown communities. we need a list and impact of police -- the public has a right to know about any funding, a decision or use of military equipment by local government officials as well as the right to participate in any government agencies decision to fund, acquire or use such equipment. decisions (indiscernible) how military equipment is funded or used should take strong consideration to the public's welfare, and solar rights and liberty and based on meaningful public input. ab41 was offered by david chiu and he likely intended it to reduce the amount of military equipment and weapon in the hands of the police department. if police departments were forced to disclose to city

government how much they had taken away, you would hope vanity will prevail and the governments will force those police departments to give utmost, if not all of the weapons who didn't account for human nature. of course (indiscernible). city government like san francisco's board of supervisors have chosen to endorse the militarization of police department. they make themselves and you and the entire city complicit and police violence (indiscernible). >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. caller, you have two minutes. >> hi, good evening. my name is nasa and i'm a resident of district ten. my comment is not pertaining to the equipment but the officers using the equipment. and why do i say that? in reference to an

article admission local where your captain of mission statement was quoted referring to george floyd's death as a sting and he goes on to say that the requirement of reporting use of force is extra paperwork that is unnecessary because these things don't really occur. it's the mindset and the culture of the officers within this department. the lack of sensitivity. cultural competency and the commonsense to want to do better, the basics so i ask, how do you chief scott, allow the officers with these biases to be in a leadership position in a predominantly brown community much he stated he doesn't see a need to focus his station on raising the community policing standard or skills. but yet we should be trusting that they will do the right thing when given more tactical equipment. don't believe so. and i yield the rest of my time.

>> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> this is (indiscernible) williams calling and again, i am concerned that we are not ready to start talking about the usage of these robots. and all of these other mechanisms at this point in time. we need to focus on what we're supposed to be focusing on which is reform, training our officers, so they do know how to communicate better with members of the public. and at this point in time, i'm also concerned about the comment made by the captain of police agent. that's not the mindset of someone who is supposed to be reform-minded and in a leadership position. i suggest that you look at that local article and he be (indiscernible) about this. of or wise, he shouldn't -- i yield

the rest of my time. >> >> -- vice-president carter oberstone, that's end of public comment. >> next item. >> the commission is going to remove line item 11, 12, and 134 from the agenda as there is no closed session tonight. >> i'm sorry, sergeant. before we call the next item, chief wanted to have one last word on the current item. >> thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. i wanted to answer and commissioner byrne question, no, they are not mine vehicles. i just verified. i believe that to be the case but i verified. >> yeah. you understand my point. yeah. >> i do. thank you. >> i mean, i understand to protect the officers if it's an active shooter situation. we don't need mine resistants in san francisco. >> they are not, thank you. >> thank you. >> great, thank you sergeant.

could we call line item 8. >> line number 8, discussion and possible action to approve revised dgo 5.07, “rights of on-lookers,” for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the effected bargaining units as required by law discussion & possible. action. >> all right. good evening, chief scott. chief of staff hawkins, vice-president carter oberstone and members of the police commission. my name is tom harvey. and i'm the captain of the sfpd academy. i'm here tonight to introduce to you 5.07 and draft form the rights of onlookers, last issued in 1995. a few months back, acting assistant chief requested the training division work on providing guidance to members regarding rights of onlookers. after reviewing the new version of 3.01 and seeing this topic

came with special circumstances, regarding notifying dpa, i reached out to director kaywood. director kaywood and attorney germane jones were in the a could meet one day working on the disengagement policy and i was able to connect with them regarding this specific general order and essentially we got together in person. we talked about common goals and came up essentially more or less with what you see before you here tonight. so, what i would like to do is i don't want to go over this whole thing section by section but i want to talk about the main differences and key additions is what i'll call them. number one, the purpose. the purpose of the policy to protect the rights and safety of onlookers detained or arrested person and the safety of

department members. while main tagging the crime scene and restricted area or investigation. so, without reading to you the policy, i'll highlight the department recognizes that on-lookers have a first amendment right to observe, photograph, and record members during a performance of their duties. so as long as it doesn't delve into the criminal side of things. additionally, we acknowledge that members of the public have a fourth amendment right to maintain and retain a recording which they made unless, to other lawful processes like a search warrant or otherwise. so i'm going to carryon. so there's a few exceptions to this. and it's listed on the top of page 2. again, i'm not going to go through them. just know it references the criminal activity arena and or compromising a criminal investigation. the next

section, guidance during vehicle stops. during a concurrence meeting, there was a suggestion made by the department to provide the public with topics. we tried our best to do this in a concise way. again, people -- passengers of a car can record police officers so long as their actions do not pose a safety risk to the officer. moving on. another and the last key section is about restricted areas. this is a new section that wasn't contemplated in the current 1995 version. essentially what it says in short is on-lookers are not permitted in designated crime scenes and that's bounded by crime scene tape. secondly, on-lookers are not permitted to be in restricted areas. this is

important here, designated by signage of department facilities, station parking lots or areas. and what this is talking about are sensitive areas of police stations. we had, i think it was back in 2021, there was a first amendment auditor issue at a police station within the department and this guidance is supposed to help members kind of navigate those unusual circumstances where if there's a sign and you inform the person that their presence is unlawful because they are in a sensitive area, that the member can take action if it was deemed appropriate. i think that's in a nutshell the key differences unless there's any questions. >> thank you, captain harvey for the presentation. two questions

for me. on page 2, section b, the guidance on stop sections and it says members have the authority during traffic stops to control the movements of all vehicle occupants for safety purposes. and i just wanted to ask, is that right? is that a correct statement of the law? i maybe, because that sounds a little -- if the car is stopped and you're detained and you're not free to leave. control movements sounds like custodial arrest. i'm sure there was discussion around the precise language so i wanted to ask about that. >> sure. no problem. it wasn't meant to state or imply that literately controlling the body parts or body movements of passengers within a car. rather, it was in reference to the supreme court case, pennsylvania verses nems, where there's a balanced test within that court case. i won't go further into it but for reference, that's what

it is referring to. >> okay. thank you. that's helpful. and then i was just catching this right now. also, on page 2, section a6, makes an internal reference, it says c5.07.02e, should that be o2f because that section is referring to restricted areas and f defines restricted areas. do i have that wrong? >> you're correct. >> then, if it's all right with you, if we can make, we can just make an amendment. i didn't review rob roberts rules -- i didn't review robert rules so this can get choppy. we can make an amendment. >> i have no objection to that. >> great. thank you. okay.

commissioner yanez. >> thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. in section a, the second paragraph, members shall allow the onlooker to remain in proximity to the interaction to overhear and record the encounter. was there any thought given to actually defining what the proximity limit should be instead of leaving it up to the officers to determine in the heat of the moment? just because you know, i know that, obviously there's a need to contain and control a scene and leaving that up to the officer's discretion without defining it may look differently in different scenarios. >> yes, commissioner. i understand the concern, what you're defining. i think the challenge is that it's very much

case-by-case basis depending on what it is, right. is it a vehicle stop? is it a pedestrian stop? is it a mass arrest? i think that scenario would dictate the appropriate space, therefore making it hard to define. >> would a minimum amount of space be provided, just give that much guidance? i understand that there are scenarios where, yes, you're going to require, i don't know, one hundred yards because there's an active scene and it's taped off but there are situations where, you know, whether there's an encounter and a friend wants to come and say, five feet is the minimum or, i mean, i don't know, that's a random suggestion but i feel there's a lot of opportunity to take advantage of the language when it's not as defined as it could be, so that's something to consider. i don't know if we want to consider an amendment or making a recommendation at this

point. does this still go to meet and confer? >> i believe there's bargaining. i want to support what captain harvey said. it's difficult. in the interest of the on-looker, you know, if we draw an arbitrary space limitation, it may not be in the interest of the onlooker, but so general rule of thumb for officers, it depends on the volatility of the situation and if the person invades the space to where they are interfering with the officer's investigation then that is against the law, against the section 148 of the penal

code but i just want to have some discretion so we don't drawee -- draw an imaginary line. we have been in situations where people want to record and it was a problem and but if you're standing far away and take care of what you need to take care of, it's hard to draw that into a policy because it's so -- every case is different and routine traffic stop with no volatility, no contention and the person wants to stand close enough where they can hear, i wouldn't see where it's reasonable for an officer to say you have to stand across the street but contentious situation where there's the possibility or actually it's a violent situation, you know, that

officer may say, give enough space to keep you safe and keep us safe, so that's what we didn't want to get locked into because it's impossible to predict a situation and we want to balance this with the rights of the onlooker and this is what this is about but allow the officers to do their job safely and what they need to do and keep the person that they are engaging with safe as well. >> i understand. it's a major challenge. i'm looking at trying to minimize conflict, right. we're going to have people, who, without a defined perimeter may say, what do you mean? you're asking me not to record and i want to get closer and we have a contentious scenario. i understand the challenges of crafting policy that will meet every scenario, right. so, i'm comfortable moving forward in this direction. the other question that i did have, there's language that says the

member, i think it's in d-2, the member may request in a noncoerce manner that the on-looker provide the recording and this is similar to me to the surveillance policy, right. or the live feed policy. we have a document that we're producing asking people to either sign, consent to or not so we don't gage in that language -- engage in that language saying if i have the right to request your phone and the manner in which that manner is made, right. depending on the temperament on the person, depending on the situation and the scenario, that interaction can turn volatile. was there thought to a card saying, this is our policy. you can give it to us or you don't have to but here's where you can get ahold of us if you would like to share that information. was there thought given to

something along those lines? >> this is specifically in regard to e-2, correct? >> e-2 in the section where it says that the member may request, comma, in a noncoerce manner, comma. the onlooker voluntarily provide the recording. it leavings room for interpretation and a lot of room for potential conflict we can minimize. >> it's d-2. >> thank you. >> yea. i think -- to talk this out, if i was the witness and you're the police officer, and you asked me, like, hey, i know your phone captured the footage, the evidence and you ask me, as the officer, hey, can i -- would you consent to providing your phone. the member would be obligated to provide a property receipt to that witness and it's also captured on body worn

camera, so i think all of the voluntary element of that exchange would be documented on the body worn camera and if a member - if the police officer is seizing something from a member of the public, there's a property receipt ex changed and they are signing for that property so i think there's current, i'll call them safe cards that would hopefully address that concern or the idea that it's voluntary in nature. >> i don't -- i don't think my concern was more the recuperating of their evidence or of their document or of their phone. it's more that engagement that takes place. if i give you a card, i'm not ready to give you my video right now but i have a card that say, maybe this is significant to this case and maybe i can help. it may help with the

communication with the community and i can reach out not just on the scene. it's something worth considering. and that was -- those were my two points. >> if i can add, it is -- i understand your thought process and it is a good idea and this actually did come up in some of our discussions i have been in, the dynamic is this and i have been in this situation many times, there are situations where people get really, really upset when you hand them a card in a public space, particularly in the neighborhoods where they believe that's going to indicate they are talking to the police or giving evidence and i've seen it. i have witnessed it and i have experienced it on this end of the conversation where people have gotten highly upset when i tried to hand them a card. are you trying to get me killed? we didn't want to mandate it. i

understand where you're getting at and the other idea of an officer asking for evidence is coerce and that's what captain harvey is trying to address. there's safeguards and mandating giving a card, i would ask not to do that because particularly and in certain communities where retaliation and -- where people are afraid to talk to us, they don't want to be seen giving anything to us or being given anything and i understand that. that's the balance of this conversation. >> i'm very aware of that dynamic, obviously. but it's the same thing as with the phones, right. if i'm going to turn over the phone, if i want to cooperate, that gives me an opportunity to cooperate from a distance and it doesn't have to be mandatory. we can use the noncoerce optional language and just enhance it with documentation that helps that person follow up. i think it could be something we look at

that wouldn't necessarily endanger or put anyone at risk and it would improve communication. thank you. >> chief of staff hawkins. >> two points. one additionally or one initially is to respond to commissioner yanez's first point. and dpa agrees with chief scott and captain harvey in terms of not being so specific about a distance frame or kind of space because i think there's too many scenarios to contemplate and we struggle with that in every policy we write. how much do you legislate and how do you -- dpa agrees that as-is, we should send this forward and i want to take a little step back in terms of process because we're giving credit to our excellent policy team who greatly deserves it. however, this particular policy recommendation also stems from cases that dpa actually investigated and brought to the

disciplinary review board where we discussed it with that body, which includes ac-flaretty and other members of the department. it's important to see the progress that that body has made and know that policy recommendations come from a multitude of places. it could be something we see in the news. it can be the great work done by our investigators and legal team which then percolates to janel writing the policy. it's a team effort and we have done a good job capturing policy recommendations that comes from investigations. it always didn't happen in real time. when cases show a need for policy change, that's getting implemented and happening much quicker than it did previously. so i wanted inform kind of acknowledge drb and the investigation side of dpa for helping tee up the

issues we're talking about. >> commissioner benedicto. >> thank you, vice-president carter oberstone. i don't have further comments. i make a motion that the commission adopt 5.07 for use in bargaining with the effective bargaining unit and on page two, number six, the reference of 5.07.502e be changed to 5.02f and as we've done now for a few dgo's in a row, when it is forwarded by this commission, i would ask it include instructions that a commission hereby direct the san francisco police department and urges the san francisco department of human resource to set clear boundaries to the meet and confer process with the effective bargaining units, to

ensure there are no unreasonable delays on any items within the scope of representation, and to meet and confer with the affected bargaining units only on matters related to working conditions subject to collected bargaining under california law and not meeting with the bargaining units on the order that constitute management matters not subject to collective bargaining under california law. and as promised, i'm working on a resolution and i don't have to read that every single time. >> is there a second? >> second. >> for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, approach the podium or press star three. >> i have a comment. instead of defining proximity, maybe obstructing would be helpful to

the public? what does that mean? that's my comment, thank you. >> i was thinking about that, you know, about you're asking people for their camera so they can do -- just like what chief scott said, handing a card to someone is almost like they are snitching. and it's just same as, like, if there's a home surveillance camera. if something was happening in a residential neighborhood and people have cameras on their houses and then you go to knock on that door and say, can we see your camera. there was a murder happening outside your house. can you make them do -- it's the same thing. it's almost the same thing. some of these people don't want to get involved and you can't make a homeowner give

their camera footage up and they are worried about people listening. people can read lips too. lip reading, you know, and i was thinking too, everyone has a phone. everyone has a phone, so who are you going to ask can we use your phone or can we see your phone? everyone has a phone, so and also these phones zoom in. you can stand far back. they have sophisticated phones. you can stand far back and still catch the footage of whatever is going on. so, i don't think this is really a good thing and if people want to give up their information, then let it be up to them. that's just, like, we're asking for people to come in and help us with our unsolved cases. if we're not even getting that, what makes you think you're going to get it? i

don't know. >> good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> good evening, this is naz daniels. there was an incident in the tenderloin with officers who assaulted an onlooker and told them they were violating the law but without this policy being complete, how are we aware or if there's no proximity, how is that positive without being defined. there was a complaint made and while this is being negotiated, is there an idea that officers can do what they wish. i support proximity being defined as a minimum. i understand the explanation of chief scott of the language being raised but it never plays out in favor of the onlooker and the, the badge numbers of the officer -- (indiscernible), again there was a complaint

made. >> vice-president carter oberstone, that's the end of public. >> on the motion commissioner walker, how do you vote? >> yes. >> commissioner walker is yes. >> commissioner benedicto. >> yes. >> commissioner yanez? >> yes. >> commissioner byrne? >> yes. >> commissioner yee? >> yes. >> commissioner carter? >> yes. >> you have six yeses. >> for members of the public, the line item ten is also being removed from tonight's agenda. line item nine, discussion and possible action to approve revised dgo 6.04, “assaults on police officers,” for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the effected bargaining units as required by law (discussion & possible action) >> hello. good evening. my name

is deputy chief rog. good evening, vice-president carter oberstone, chief of staff, sarah hawkins, sorry, it says paul anderson there and assistant chief flarety and members of the commission and members of the public that's not only here but also listening to us online. i'm going to be introducing captain mark who worked for me at investigation under general crime. he oversaw general work in niu who had the main responsibility of investigating assaults on police officersful he'll be going over 6.04. it's only go pages and three main procedural sections. and i'll hand it over to mark. >> good evening, vice-president carter oberstone, commissioners, assistant chief flaret and chief

of staff. i'm mark, assigned to the risk management office and as dc stated, my previous assignment was the acting captain at general crimes so to give you history on it, the sme, there was a prior sme assigned to this go but based on staffing changes, i was reassigned as the sme in the latter part of last year. when i got the draft it was already initially written. we went over the recommendations grid and a lot of it was already addressed and i worked closely with ms. kaywood from dpa and based on her feedback and input, we were able to come to this current draft that we have before you today. just to go over this draft, the prior draft, well, our current go was written in 994. and it was -- it was written in 1994 and half a

page. we made this new draft a lot more robust and giving more direction and responsibilities on what the officers should be doing, also more directions for supervisors on what they need to do, what their responsibilities are and what the investigative steps or units need to do in situations where officers are assaulted. so, i'm not going to go into great detail but you know, like i stated, prior draft or current draft, sorry, our current go was only half a page, so it's a lot more robust with a lot more information to make it easier for officers and supervisors and investigators to do their job when we have incidents where officers are assaulted. in closing, i want to thank janel kaywood for her assistance with this. she had a lot of input and feedback for me as well as d clerks c -- dc. he

had a lot of feedback, so without their assistance, we wouldn't be where we are today with this draft. thank you. >> thank you for the presentation. i don't see of my colleagues in the queue. oh. >> a motion. >> yes, commissioner benedicto, if you would like to make a motion. >> thank you for the presentation, i appreciate it. thank you, deputy chief and captain. i'll make a motion to adopt 6.04 for use with the effective bargaining use with instructions that the commission hereby direct san francisco police department and urges the san francisco department of human resources to set clear boundaries to the meet and confer process with the effective bargaining units to make sure there's no unreasonable delays on items within scope of representation and meet with the bargaining units only on mooters related --

on matters related to working conditions under california law. and not meet and confer with the bargaining units on any part of the general order that constitute management matters not subject to collective bargaining under california law. >> second. >> members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding item 9, approach the podium or press star three now. there's no public comment on the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? >> yes. >> commissioner benedicto? >> yes. >> commissioner yanez. >> yes. >> commissioner byrne? >> yes. >> commissioner yee? >> yes. >> vice-president carter oberstone? >> yes. >> you have six yeses. >> line item 15, adjournment.

[gavel] dev mission's goal is aiming to train young adults,

youth so we can be a wealth and disparity in underserved communities like where we are today. my name is leo sosa. i'm the founder and executive director for devmission. we're sitting inside a computer lab where residents come and get support when they give help about how to set up an e-mail account. how to order prescriptions online. create a résumé. we are also now paying attention to provide tech support. we have collaborated with the san francisco mayor's office and the department of technology to implement a broad band network for the residents here so they can have free internet access.

we have partnered with community technology networks to provide computer classes to the seniors and the residents. so this computer lab becomes a hub for the community to learn how to use technology, but that's the parents and the adults. we have been able to identify what we call a stem date. the acronym is science technology engineering and math. kids should be exposed no matter what type of background or ethnicity or income status. that's where we actually create magic. >> something that the kids are really excited about is science and so the way that we execute that is through making slime. and as fun as it is, it's still a chemical reaction and you start to understand that with the materials that you need to make the slime. >> they love adding their little twists to everything. it's just a place for them to

experiment and that's really what we want. >> i see. >> really what the excitement behind that is that you're making something. >> logs, legos, sumo box, art, drawing, computers, mine craft, and really it's just awaking opportunity. >> keeping their attention is like one of the biggest challenges that we do have because, you know, they're kids. they always want to be doing something, be helping with something. so we just let them be themselves. we have our set of rules in place that we have that we want them to follow and live up to. and we also have our set of expectations that we want them to achieve. this is like my first year officially working with kids. and definitely i've had moments where they're not getting something. they don't really understand it and you're trying to just talk to them in a way that they can make it work teaching them in different ways how they can get the light bulb to go off and

i've seen it first-hand and it makes me so happy when it does go off because it's like, wow, i helped them understand this concept. >> i love playing games and i love having fun with my friends playing dodge ball and a lot of things that i like. it's really cool. >> they don't give you a lot of cheese to put on there, do they? you've got like a little bit left. >> we learn programming to make them work. we do computers and programming. at the bottom here, we talk to them and we press these buttons to make it go.

and this is to turn it off. and this is to make it control on its own. if you press this twice, it can do any type of tricks. like you can move it like this and it moves. it actually can go like this. >> like, wow, they're just absorbing everything. so it definitely is a wholehearted moment that i love experiencing. >> the realities right now, 5.3 latinos working in tech and about 6.7 african americans working in tech. and, of course, those tech companies are funders. so i continue to work really hard with them to close that gap and work with the san francisco unified school district so juniors and seniors come to our program, so kids come to our stem hub and be

exposed to all those things. it's a big challenge. >> we have a couple of other providers here on site, but we've all just been trying to work together and let the kids move around from each department. some kids are comfortable with their admission, but if they want to jump in with city of dreams or hunter's point, we just try to collaborate to provide the best opportunity in the community. >> devmission has provided services on westbrook. they teach you how to code. how to build their own mini robot to providing access for the youth to partnerships with adobe and sony and google and twitter. and so devmission has definitely brought access for our families to resources that our residents may or may not have been able to access in the