department has an impact on the community. but being in the position you are, you impact the officers that then impact the community. so it's an incredible impact that you are able, able to have there. in addition to all the different duties and training also provides invaluable input on to this commission on the process. you know, the joes are written in large part by the department and to have that input from we almost always will say we will we will hear what training say about this. we won't hear what folks say about this. so thank you always for making that contribution as well. and you know, as we've heard, you've received and incredible award from from the statewide from your peers and on behalf of the people of the city and county of san francisco, we'd like to add that to your growing stack of awards as well. so congratulations, sergeant. thank you. mr. and don't forget, among those those joes at the department wrote was our foot pursuit policy, which sergeant bergeron also is a principal author of director henderson.

yeah, i'll try not to repeat any of the accolades that have been said so far about your work and the role. but i just wanted to point out, and i think it's telling i know we've alluded to the award for from post as a statewide award, but i also just wanted to make sure that there was contemplation and recognition for the role that you played with cmc. our sergeant, in allowing co to play a role and come and receive that training as well. the coa is the california civilian oversight association, an every civilian oversight agency in the state came to san francisco to learn from san francisco. the critical mindset training that information led to broad understanding. we're still receiving comments about the training that they received from being able to participate in what you presented with us, with san francisco police department.

and it went a long way and it's had an impact. i just want you to know and understand that the role and the work that you play here in san francisco is being seen beyond just the benefit of what we receive here in san francisco. and we're absolutely appreciative, appreciative. i don't know what the bonus is for this certificate. this is it. are we up to 10,000 or $15,000? the thing. but i just want to thank you so much for the commitment and the ongoing engagement that is a benefit to the community of san francisco and beyond. and thank you, director, commissioner yee. thank you very much, mr. vice president carter oversaw again, i just want to congratulate you and thank you for all your hard work and preparing our members for the, i guess, tactical preparedness into the 21st century. i know it's going to go a long way and you're you're doing right now for us as as we see fit and throughout the state

of california, again wish you continue success and stay safe. thank you. thank you, sergeant. no pressure, but wanted to invite you to address the commission and the public. if you wanted to. oh, speech. yeah, sure. i do feel the pressure, so i'm going to acknowledge that now. i did have something prepared, but just hearing everyone speak and just reflecting on where we came from right now and why we're late, it's just going to go off to him, if you will. but i do want to thank the chief scott and assistant chief flaherty sitting back there, who was my captain at the training division at the time, for that belief in our vision and to inspire us and to support us. yeah, without them, it we wouldn't be here today again, working with the members of the outside stakeholders such as ourselves and our input from the buy in, from our membership really has brought this place in a short amount of time to a very something very proud to be of. we sorry we were late, lieutenant. me and i were at a less lethal training preparing

for apec and we told those officers we got to we're reaching a certain level, but let's take pride in all the growth and the patches on our shoulders. that's something to be very proud of. and i don't take lightly. so i didn't lieutenan don't mean brought up a quote from our retired lieutenant nevin the patches and our stars represent what department, who we work for, but our names also represent our families and the families that are at home supporting us and believing in us and let's bring honor to them both. so that's what we're trying to do every day. so thank you guys all for your support. thank you, chief. thank you. assistant chief, thank you for the lieutenant. yes yes. thank you very much. thank you for this very stressful situation for me. thank you. for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item one, please approach the podium. maybe why not? how are you doing? it's interesting. yes, it would be good to

remember that your uniform as a police guys doesn't take over your responsibility. you see, you own your uniform. your uniform doesn't own you. i don't know why i'm saying that. i think it's important. the concept of uniform is goes back a long way in history. so i think that's all for now. thank you. this is this for general public comment? i didn't hear you. i'm sorry. no, this is for line item one. the officer recognition. all right. and seeing no further public comment, line item for adoption of minutes action for the meetings of october fourth, october 11th and october 18th, 2023. motion to adopt the minutes. second for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item for the adoption of minutes, please approach the

podium and seeing no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes? commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. yes commissioner janez is yes. commissioner byrne yes. commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter overstone yes. vice president stone is. yes. you have six yeses line item five chief's report discussion weekly crime trends and public safety concerns provide an overview of fences, incidents or events occurring in san francisco have an impact on public safety commission discussion on unplanned events and activities achieved described as will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. chief scott, thank you, sergeant. thank you, sergeant youngblood. good evening, vice president and acting president carter stone commission and executive director henderson and the public. so i'll start off with just a really high level overview of the weekly crime statistics and where we are year to date. we're -7% in terms of our overall total crime

reduction for the year. that is a difference of almost a. 3000 crimes, a little over 3000 crimes. the breakdown is violent crime is up 2% in and property crime is down 8% for violent crime. that's a difference of about 112 crimes. more than we had this time last year for property crime is a difference of just over 3000 crimes, fewer than we had this time last year. in terms of the breakdown for violent crime, our homicides are up slightly by 7. we're at 46. and actually we had our 47th from a previous incident where it was declared a person just died, previous stabbing. we had six homicides in the month of october where we had, i think about half of those were stabbings. so that is an alarming trend that we're seeing. and. a little bit more to follow on that. in terms of gun violence, we're down 6% year to date. that is an increase in

reduction from the previous last few months. but we have 147 incidents resulting in 174 victims. and just the breakdown of our gun recoveries, which is a part of our strategy there have been 912 gun recoveries year to date as compared to 890 gun recoveries this time last year. that is a 2% increase going back to the homicides. we had a stabbing that occurred at market. and octavia on 1026, at 1:26 a.m, the victim was stabbed during an altercation with the subject. officers rendered aid until medics arrived and then the victim was transported with life threatening injuries. the victim succumbed to his injuries and during the investigation, a possible suspect was identified. the suspect was located and later detained that morning by bayview officers in the area of gerald avenue and upton street. the investigation is ongoing on that particular incident. the

next homicide to report is a homicide that occurred on 1026 at 3:18 p.m. this was on the 1100 block of buchanan. one victim received fatal injuries and one victim non fatal injuries. and this was a shooting at 3:18 p.m. or approximately 3:18 p.m. witness has heard an argument between the subject and one of the victims then heard several gunshots. one victim fell to the ground and then the subject shot victim to would run over to victim one. victim two was also struck by gunfire and the subject fled. and the two victims were transported to the hospital and treated for gunshot wounds. unfortunately, one of the victims succumbed to her injuries and the suspect appeared to be known by the victims. and there has been an arrest in that case as the third homicide was a stabbing that occurred at courtland and hilton on 1029, 23 at 4:13 p.m. in the bayview following an altercation, officers located

two victims suffering from stab wounds, both victims were transported were one did not survive the stabbing. the second victim is in critical condition. no arrest at this time. there is evidence to follow up on this case and i will keep the commission and the public posted on this particular case. the this is one that i'll talk about more next week. but we also had a another stabbing that occurred in september. and that victim just died this week. so that is another homicide that will be recorded for the month of october. i'll have more for that this week. and the other incidents that of note were on 1023 at 12:40 a.m. at 16th and florida in the mission division, a victim which was a passenger in a vehicle. the vehicle pulled over, the victim exited, and the driver shot the victim twice and

then fled. the victim was transported and is in stable condition. no further on this case. that investigation is ongoing. then at 11 on 5:11 a.m. on 1028, 23in the 1000 block of costa in the bayview, the victim was in a vehicle and heard several gunshots. the victim then realized that they had been shot and was transported to the hospital in stable condition. that is also still under investigation. no arrest at this time. and finally, and the 900 block of geary in the northern on 1029 at 2:01 a.m, the victim of this case sustained gunshot wounds following an altercation with the suspect. the victim was transported in stable condition in and that is still also under investigation. we're following up on leads on that particular case. a couple of significant arrests before before i close on last thursday morning, we announced that through a press

conference that we had additional arrests from a shooting that occurred on june 18th, 2023. this was the shooting along the embarcadero. the stress for about a mile and a half. initially, there was an individual that was arrested in that case, that person was later release it. and these particular arrests, which in total two arrests and one one identification of a suspect that is in custody on other other charges. so three individuals in all, we were able to connect to this particular crime. the two individuals were booked. the third individual has not been booked on this particular case as of yet. but we have identified that person and we expect charges to be filed on that case as well as you all might remember, this was on the embarcadero with two vehicles exchanging gunfire as they travel from beach street, basically down the embarcadero,

almost to the baseball stadium. as the suspects were driving, one of the vehicles struck. a ten year old and the second vehicle struck a 16 year old victim. both of who were crossing the street at the embarcadero. so this was a really, really heinous incident. and it was very, very dangerous in terms of what happened there. so i just want to thank our investigators who really put in a lot of work on this case to put this together. they in all last wednesday served five search warrants. they recovered 13 handguns, four assault rifles and a large volume of ammunition. so there is still work to be done on this case. we're not done yet. there are other aspects of this case to investigate. but our officers and our investigators led by lieutenant tom mcguire, did a really an outstanding job at this point in this case and more to follow. and lastly, to report on an auto or two incidents. first, the auto burglary arrest

that occurred on 100 block of santa rosa in the ingleside on 1028. this was a stolen vehicle that was spotted by officers after being involved in an attempted robbery in the mission district, in which shots were fired. multiple plainclothes units followed the vehicle to the 700 block of york street where the driver exited. and attempted and committed an auto burglary. the vehicle then fled to the two 2000 block of borough street, where the suspect fled on foot and was later taken into custody by sfpd officers. the subject, who is a juvenile, was booked into the juvenile justice center and the attempted robbery that occurred in mission district connected to this individual is still under investigation. another really nice job by our coordinated between our plainclothes and uniform officers on this particular case. lastly, this incident was a very high profile incident. this was a eod or explosives related incident that occurred, started at the 600

block of filbert on october 29th at 5:52 p.m, officers responded to a call of a battery aggravated assault at the location, which was a church witness has pointed the officers to the subject as he fled in a vehicle as officers followed the subject vehicle, the subjects threw an explosive device at their vehicle, which exploded as officers pursued the vehicle. the subject threw a second explosive device out of his vehicle, and that device also exploded as the suspect got on the freeway and fled toward the east bay. the california highway patrol took over the pursuit and sfpd officers terminated their portion of this pursuit. the chp took the suspect into custody in the city of martinez. several crime scenes were located and processed. and this investigation is ongoing. that subject or suspect has been charged with multiple crimes. and this was a this was an

extremely dangerous situation in bombs being or explosives being thrown at officers during the pursuit on city streets. these officers hours really did a really nice job maintaining their composure in the midst of everything that was going on out there. so more to follow on the investigation as we do still have work to do in this case. but that suspect is in custody, has been detained, and if any other more information comes out of this that is appropriate to bring to the commission and the public, i will do that at that time. that is it. i think i'm out of time, but that's it for my report for this week. great thanks, chief, for that report. i wanted to ask about apec since that's coming up soon. could do you do you know how many law enforcement personnel will be in san francisco for apec? it will be a lot. i mean, the numbers are going to be in the thousands as far as the total amount of

officers we this department will be fully deployed, meaning mobilized. actually, everybody will be on 12 or 14 hour shifts, depending on their assignment. california highway patrol is bringing, i think, over over a thousand personnel to assist with this event. and then we have our federal agents that will be here in large numbers as well. so it's going to be a very heavily deployed event. and what about other local agencies? will there be other local agencies as well? and do you have a sense for the number? yes, we do, mainly from the motorcycle support needed for some of the motorcade escorts and all that. i don't have the on the top of my head, the list of all the departments. but there is about, i believe over 40 officers that will be assigned to help the sfpd and the california highway patrol with the escorts. so and

i do want to thank publicly those departments. and i'm sorry, i don't have the on top of my head, but everybody's shorthanded. and for them to be able to help out, it really means a lot to the city because that's a big part of the work that needs to be done. so i think i saw a newspaper article, federal authority is estimating that between 2 to 5000 this this was a couple of months ago, though, 2 to 5000 law enforcement personnel total would be in san francisco. is that does that jive with what you currently. yes. think at this point that number definitely is definitely in that ballpark. and, you know, there's just has made last minute adjustments depending on the whatever intelligence we're getting about events. that may or may not occur. so but that that's definitely in the ballpark and could you just give us a sense of what the division of labor will be between an sfpd , the local agencies, chp, the federal authorities just kind of what what each cluster of law

enforcement agencies, what their differences in responsibility. sure. so this is a national security a national special security event in se which is the highest level of secure city. and that's because of the number of dignitaries from the 21 economies of 21 countries that will be here. so the lead agency is in terms of the security is the united states secret service. and they are responsible for really the definitely the you know, the president and his contingency of people and the vice president and her contingency. but also with the dignitary protection piece of this. that's that's pretty much their list. and that will be a part of that. the sfpd , particularly the escorts and the like, the foot print of the actual events where that have already been made public in terms of where these events will be. mosconi being one of them. local law enforcement will be

responsible for most, if not all, of the fixed posts, local and probably with some support from the highway patrol, the fixed posting and all the things that will happen to secure the perimeters of that if there's any related events, you know, protests and the like. local law enforcement. so we will be responsible for that. and then any spontaneous things outside of what i just mentioned that comes up is going to be a local issue. but a lot of the work in terms of the personnel is really the security of the venues. we have had has been made public, you know, pretty large footprints that these venues and they have to be secure. and so that's going to be a combination of uniformed officers from state and sfpd. and can you give us a sense of who's taking direction from whom? so, for example, a local agency is from other jurisdictions who will be giving them direction? will it be sfpd?

you know, hey, we could use additional support at this fixed post or whatever it may be because you've got so many overlapping agencies with at different levels of federalism. so i'm just curious. yes who's giving orders? so the key to these types of events, when you have so many collaborative partners is the local agency is the lead. you know, as far as the overall event, the us secret service is the lead. you know, they're giving direction and particularly on the dignitary piece of this, but they are the lead agency in terms of the security of this event, in terms of the tactics of the day to day . let's say if there's a protest or let's say the footprint of the security, that will be sfpd and we will be communicating with whatever other local law enforcement agencies that are helping out with their portion of this. but everybody's communicating as well. so the communication is a big piece of

this, a lot of moving parts, communication. but the day to day tactics, as as you heard from sergeant bulgarin when he was talking, you know, we're we're training and refreshing up on our policies and all that. and it's our role as sfpd to coordinate that day to day on the ground. tactical part of this operation. the bigger picture of security. we're all taking direction from the us secret service on really the bigger security plan because this is a national security event. but the local tactics will be us and in other situations when we've worked with other law enforcement agencies, we've established memorandums of understanding to delineate responsibility and also to set out which policies and procedures will apply. since every agency has its own rules and regulations, it has to follow. was there any mou put in place for this event? there were some mous for the local agencies . for instance, the whatever departments are going to have motorcycle officers just delineating responsibility. if

so, there was some. as far as mous with the us secret service and the like. no, but with the local agencies, yes. and i don't remember exactly how many. i think there's about four local agencies, maybe a few more that are helping out. and i should probably know the answer to this, but i don't. but for the local agencies from other jurisdictions, what is the process like? kind of what is the legal authority for them to come into, say, san francisco, go and assist? is it the state law? allow that? do we do you have to sign off on them coming in? how does that piece work? well, there peace officers in the state of california. so they they can they can exercise their duties as peace officers anywhere in the state. of course, the chp has statewide jurisdiction. we're not doing this, but they are instances with these this level of events where there is there are out of

state officers that go to these events. for instance, we got invitations to participate in, you know, national conventions, either democratic or or republican national conventions. you know, we opted not to do that. but in those types of situations, the officers are deputized, usually federally deputized, so they can exercise whatever that authority that that deputy deputization grants them. we did not do that for this particular thing. we just using state agencies and local bay area agencies and also just another component to this in the event that the event triggers a level of where mutual aid is called in, let's say, like happened during the george floyd civil unrest, where we actually exercise mutual aid, then the state coordinates that and officers come from all over the state, depending on who's available and who's willing to do it. but they they are able to exercise their peace officer

powers in the city and county of san francisco. so then for the other local i mean, i understand that they have a license from the state and they can work for any agency, but because they're working for another jurisdiction , there's no special step that you or anyone else had to take for them to be able to come and help us for apec. no, no. okay. and then last question. can you give us a sense for how this will impact just non apec coverage in other parts of the city? i know obviously a lot of folks will be reassigned from their normal responsibilities for this and what is what does that look like, especially if you're in a district that's not near where the core apec events are taking place because as we're mobilizing that week, if unless somebody is sick or has some type of emergency, everybody will be working. so actually, the deployment in the stations is likely to be greater than what it is on a normal day.

and the reason being that we don't know what the contingencies might be that will be needed. for instance, if we have issues that grow in complexity or grow in the need for officers to respond, we want to have the ability to do that. so in the event that that doesn't happen, there'll be assigned to their district station. so all the sector cars will be filled. and we also have to plan for contingencies that take care of whatever else might happen in the city. for instance, let's say we have a critical incident, which usually takes a lot more personnel than just a typical call for service. we want to be prepared to do that without touching the officers designated to go to the apec deployment. so we need to be prepared for that because the city has to keep running and so the other part of this is in terms of the command structure or the emergency operations center, which manages will be stood up and so the communications between the city agencies, police, fire, all dem,

all the emergency agencies is enhanced too, because of that emergency operation center being stood up. and our department, department operations center will be stood up. and then there's a federal communications center. so there's a lot of communication options that has to happen to make sure that everything that you just ask about is coordinated. and we do believe that we're prepared with a mobilization because everybody will be working. great thanks. chief commissioner yanez. thank you. vice president carter oberstar. thank you, chief, for the report. and i really want to commend those officers that you know, made the arrest with the with the dangerous situation with those explosives. i think it really demonstrates the commitment that our officers have to safety and i think they went above and beyond in that instance. so thank you for that report. do you have any updates on the tenderloin kind of policing strategies as far as outcome and whether any people

have accepted treatment, whether there have been any improvements in that area? yeah so there there have been a few and i don't have the exact number, but there have been a few that actually have accepted treatment . i think i reported. a week or maybe two commission meetings. there's a nonprofit called tenderloin that's. stood up on october 4th and they have what they're terming to be night navigators. and their job is to connect people that we come in contact with, particularly on the on the substance disorder side, to services. so that actually started off well, actually went out with them i think that first week. and me and a squad of tenderloin officers that particular night we got nine people who agreed to get off the streets and go to shelter or go to services, which is the first step. so that's a promising, you know, i can say

that's promising. it's encouraging. you know, we're still a long way to go on that in terms of the services inside of the la county jail, we still i mean, they get some services pertaining to the depending on how long they're there. like if they if somebody is arrested for a use case or using in public and they have a warrant, they're going to be there more days. so there's withdrawal services and there's other medical services depending on how long they're most people are only there, though, for 3 or 4 hours until they sober up. and i'm really happy to hear about this. i did read something about that. is there a formal relationship with them as far as an mou or is this just kind of a partnership that happens whenever people are out there at the same time? now with the police department, but they're coordinated through public health? who was at the table with us every day? our department of public health, who are at the table with us every day in the planning and the meetings and all that, so they

don't have an mou with us. but one thing that was really, really encouraging is they worked well with the officers and i was out there to see it and be a part of that. sometimes with navigators and, you know, workers like that, they have an aversion to walking down the street with a police officer. and i get the reasons why, you know, sometimes it causes them pain on the back end. you know, people don't want to be labeled know like they're telling on people and that type of thing. these particular folks were ready to actually work with us. it wasn't about telling on people. it was about this person needs help. what can we collectively do to get them to a better place? and that particular night i was out there that worked really, really well. like i said, nine people in the span of about 3.5 hours is pretty amazing. and i had not seen that type of cooperation. and i've been out there many times. so it's encouraging, right? i mean, i encourage that we formalize the relationship to

whatever extent possible. if there is a way to get an mou in place. s i think that that's the ideal. i just remember when this strategy started, and i believe it was sometime in june, right, may 30th. so 29th, the, the impacts, you know, started in june. i did a quick little review of, you know, overdose deaths as a result of there was a standard article that mentioned, you know, the increase in calls to 911 for over overdose related incidents and the surround areas, something like 40% in nob hill. and, you know, in june when we started this enforcement strategy, commissioner. commissioner, would you please let me finish? you could get on the agenda. you could put your name on the queue, but let's let commissioner yanez finish and then commissioner walker, if you want to speak as well, i'll call your name in the order that it appears in the queue. i think i have a right to speak about the

chief's report and our existing police strategies. so when this policing strategy started, we had a large coalition of folks, you know, who filled up this room and brought us some information about the potential impacts that hard handed law enforcement has in the surrounding areas and on overdose is as a result of a study that was done in indianapolis, a city about the same size as san francisco. so we were up to 647 deaths from january to may. there were 347, an average of 69.4 from june to september. there there have been 300 and an average of 75. so somehow the. you know, the projection or the prediction, the kind of assumption that a

lot of that coalition or those providers in that coalition made , that this heavy handed policing strategy would have some unintended impacts, has actually played out right. and we're seeing the horror movie play out before our eyes, even though we have a lot of evidence that demonstrates that this is actually not necessarily improving our outcomes when it comes to both getting people into treatment or or decreasing the number of overdoses at what point do we just decide that or do we use this information to inform how we move forward with this strategy? because it's my understanding that this is a strategy that you've decided to opt into and that you continue to support. so i'd like to know, considering the evidence at hand, at what point do we revisit, rethink and maybe redeploy our strategy in

different areas, considering that there are you know, state resources flooding that area and not necessarily having the impact that we want to have? yeah, you know, i do. i have seen the same numbers that you just talked about, commissioner. and i've read the report that you referred to. you know, october, i believe there was a decrease. and i'm not here to say the decrease is because of this work. but i think we need to kind of play this out over time because as we have developed all the different components of the work that we're doing, which includes public health, which includes trying to trying to address some of the underlying issues with with housing and the instability of the people that very, you know, people that we're trying to help. i think we got to give some of these things time to play out. it's not just policing. you know, we're at the table with all these other departments every day trying to figure this out. for instance, last night i'm out with

halloween night, probably 2 to 300 people, you know, right down right across the street here. and most of them were, you know, users out, you know, doing what they do. and so the question is, you know, we're not going to arrest 300 people. we don't have the capacity to do that. who else is out there besides us? last night? nobody so the issue that i'm trying to drive, you know, if we're not at the table trying to figure this out together, shame on us. and that's exactly what we're trying to do. we do have a role in this because the public is also demanding that we do something about the open air drug use and, you know, i don't know what other tool that we have other than to enforce the law at this point, but we are bringing all these other resources to the table and they are engaging, you know, the cold tenderloin, the department of public health, with everything that they bring to the table. so, you know, the homeless outreach officers and not just the officers, but the

workers who aren't police department employees, all that's at the table. and so we've got a lot of people indoors. you know, on top of this, we don't talk about that very, very often. but so these things, i think, have to be given a chance to play out. and my ass is just, you know, whether, you know, obviously there's some disagreement to this strategy, but i think we have to give it a chance and look at all the information. i'm not here to say that the reduction in october was because of these arrests, but i can't rule it out either because we've also taken 100,000g of fentanyl off the streets since may 29th. that's a lot of twice of what we did all of last year. so where would we be if we weren't doing that? and a lot of the people who are users are also possessors and some of them are sellers. so i think we've got to give this a chance and look at it holistically and see kind of what's working and what's not.

but we are all at the table. so you know, that's a good thing. maybe we will tweak the strategy at some point. but i do think in order to do that, we have to build capacity on these other parts of this operation, including public health and some of the other underlying issues that i just mentioned. i'm going to encourage us to revisit it, creating that lead program. again, it sounds like the players are in place. it sounds like the relationship apps are there. and when you give the opportunity to for users to proactively engage in treatment, it sounds like they take the opportunity. and if we have the treatment beds available, i think we should fill them. so i'm going to continue to push the lead program. i'm some type of a treatment in lieu of prosecution. i understand diversion numbers are down in general and there are a lot of slots there. so i hope we can continue to improve our outcomes in that area and formalize these relationships. thank you. thank you, commissioner byrne. thank you. vice president carter over

stone chief there was an article in the san francisco chronicle this week about the us attorney's office in san francisco being more aggressive in prosecutions related to related to the south of market in the tenderloin neighborhood is the san francisco police handling involved in any of this activity or is the dea and the us attorney in other words, those arrests, are they coming from sfpd? so they're there is collaboration between dea and the sfpd in terms of dealing with some of what we're facing, particularly in the tenderloin and soma. but there are separate lines. if we arrest a drug dealer and it meets the criteria for a federal adoption of the case, the us attorney is adopting a lot of those cases and that that part is not new. the us attorney, i think, is

more aggressive in terms of adopting the cases. i think they've added more personnel to adopting some of these cases that meet their criteria. but those arrests are coming from both places. we arrest. the dea is doing arrests. we try to coordinate in terms of the some of the drug dealers that we've identified, and particularly the long term investigations we try to coordinate in terms of making sure that we are working in the same direction to get these drug deals off the streets. but they do their arrests and we do our arrests and some of our arrests get adopted federally. there have been some operations in terms of search warrants and things like that. interdictions most of our county where the dea and the sfpd have coordinated efforts on on warrants. federal warrants as well, federal and state warrants. but they've yielded some positive outcomes. so but they adopt what they adopt. if they don't adopt the cases, then these are state prosecute actions. but if it

meets the quantity or some of the factors like somebody who's had prior violent crime arrests and all that, it meets the federal adoption standard and they adopting those cases. thank you. i was driving along seventh street and i noticed there are federal personnel, police type personnel on seventh. have you been informed that they're actually going patrolling their own property down there now or. yes. yes. and could you comment i mean, if what i saw is true, it's something that it's long overdue. i mean, it's their property and they should be there in front of their own property. chief. and i'm looking for your comment on that. we're happy to see that. so it is it is something that we've been trying to do for several years now to get more cooperation and

support from the federal protective services. you know, they had staffing challenges just like us. but it is federal property and that responsibility we really had fallen on the shoulders of san francisco police department on federal property. a couple of things have happened, as you described. they have really increased their deployment of their uniform and federal protective services officers, and they've made some environmental changes with fencing and the like that has been very helpful to if you go down seventh street or down mission and stevenson's on the backside, there were just a lot of places to hang out, sit and that was part of the issue. so they've changed the environment they've fenced some of that real estate off and made it harder for people to do that. and that's been helpful for them and us. so i can't tell you how long they're going to keep this deployment up, but it's been a welcome change for us. and this is something we've been asking for a long time. but back to

commissioner nunez's, you know, some of his questions. i think the reason that this is happening because we're all at the table and they're not at our daily meetings, federal protective services. but if what comes out of that meeting is, hey, let's keep following up with federal protective services until we get some support, that's that's actually is happening. and we're talking about it every day and we're following up and all those things. so this collaboration is , in my opinion, a lot of good has come out of this collaboration in terms of those types of issues. as you can tell, i've been roaming around. the other thing, it's union, union square last friday and saturday day, i saw an increased police deployment there. is this an anticipate portion of the holiday shopping season or was it just i just happened to be there when there were lots of police or. yeah, there we have not. we increased the deployment

of about six weeks or so ago because we had a couple of incidents where six, seven, eight people ran into stores and, you know, had their way and we weren't able to catch them. so we did increase deployment. it's not where it was in 2021 when we had all the chaos there. i think it's back up to about 16 officers and we assigned a lieutenant to that unit to oversee and coordinate, and he's done a really, really good job. so i believe we're better coordinated and but it's not it's unless there was an incident or something, we haven't increased it to 40 like we had a few years ago. but it is about 16, which is for about four times more than what it was prior to the event in 2021. there didn't seem to anything unusual going on. there just seemed to be a huge police presence. and finally, with regards to the apec summit

that's coming in, i assume there will be increased police presence in union square because of the hotels in the area. yeah, you you will see increases all over the city. and one of the two, you know, the commissioner, vice president carter stones issues. we know there's going to be tens of thousands of people here visiting. we don't you know, there may be some protests. usually they are we want people to see that we're out there. you know, and we need people to see that we're out there. so you will see that and will there be an increased presence in the tenderloin in south of market areas? every the tenderloin central because we're we're mobilized. they will have more resources than they typically have because everybody's working. i'm sorry, they will have more resources than they typically typically have because everybody's working. so we're mobilized. and so those officers are going to be out and about. so you're not bringing them in from sort of the outer stations like taraval or richmond or anything like that? no, the officers was

assigned to apec are coming from all over the city. you know, the mobile field force squads and the fixed post. but the station officers will work their stations if they're not assigned to apec. okay. so it's not like the union square thing a couple of years ago where you brought you brought officers in from outlying stations into union square, right? it's not like that. and i'll just say this and just to, you know, we'll have command staff working basically around the clock. so if command staff feels the need to redeploy, let's say the tenderloin, i understand. but there's no like the union's square deployment a couple of years ago. i mean, i met those officers and most of the ones i met weren't from, you know, from the area that covered union square. they were from every part of the city down there at that time. okay. yeah. so, no, there will be the local officers and. that's that's the plan unless they need to be redeployed. okay. thank you. thank you, commissioner yee.

thank you very much there. vice president carter was on an as i've been assigned to the courts down in mcallister, i've been a great opportunity to visit the tenderloin district along up on larkin and eddie. i see changes there. still need work. but you know, i would say. it's not a 100% better, but it is a lot better than what it was when i was driving through in regards to tenderloin last saturday, october 28th, there was a fatality. see, i was wondering if you have any updates on it and i'd because i guess a person ran a red light and they got struck coming down from the car coming down on high street and there was a fatality of a

pedestrian. i'm just wondering if that was was that in a any reports on that? yes, commissioner, there was. and that actually we believe, stemmed from another incident. and which resulted in the individual driving the car to flee to try to get away, and that it was when the collision occurred. so really tragic situation. the person that was struck was, of course, just an innocent person walking down the street that is being fully investigated and there was a we make an arrest on that. i have to follow. it may be in my notes, but i believe we did make an arrest on that.

yes there was an arrest on that. okay thank you. regards to the apec, i know the deployment deployment of all officers, i guess, is all hands on deck, as they call it. i'm just wondering whether the rest of the city, do you have coverage? and what is your plan to ensure safety throughout the whole city? yes, we do. and similar to vice president carter overtones. so everybody's working and the officers that aren't assigned to a specific apec function will be at their stations. we will have a some contingencies in case there are critical incidents that require beyond the normal deployment. but because we're mobilized, the stations will be staffed. they will be fully staffed actually with their sector cars and then probably a little bit extra, particularly

for the stations that normally have a very busy radio call tenderloin and the metro division station. so that's the plan. and then we will redeploy if we need to, if something happens in some other part of the city outside of apec, we will have the ability to redeploy officers just to follow up on the apex and joint operation that the police department have any, i guess, joint exercise with maybe the fire department or other agencies. so going through a scenario that something does happen and preparedness and stuff like that, have you have? yes we've done that. we've done that several times. and both coordinated at the by the us secret service and everybody's at the table and we do scenario based tabletop and as a city family, we've done the same thing just for the city

departments, fire department and our department of emergency management coordinate it. that i think we've done two actually. so yes, that is a big part of preparation for these types of events, and we've done exactly that. and last but not least, i want to thank the urban alchemy's, the community liaison unit that keep us safe down there while i'm at assigned to the courts and also wish everybody, i guess, a great safe apec conference. thank you. thank you. all right, sergeant, can you please take us to public comment for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item five, the chief's report, please approach the podium. come on. okay. i hope you're going to have a good night. after that, what are we dealing with at all?

yesterday it was awkward for me too. okay first of all, i'm winging this stuff. you know, when you say i'll wing it because it's easy for me. comes from the skies, what i say. so it's easy to wing it is at all. yesterday, the board of supervisors. it's awkward for me to say when are you going to understand that puppet shows is for kids only. you have to face reality. guys, come on. so so, ipek, excellent question from max and others. why do you need so much low enforcement if the guy is coming to town, are serving the people, there is a problem. basically, if they are doing a good job for humanity, why do you need to make sure that there is no problem? normally it's not working. it doesn't make sense. so it means you are protecting what? i wouldn't say criminal activity,

but it's very close. so we must rise here and understand what's going on because this can go on forever. the second volume version of torch and the system is not going to work for too long anymore. you get it here. there. sorry. i need to talk. there too. okay, chief, uh, look, i don't know what you can do. look understand this. please i don't know what else to say. is that it? thanks. public comment. good evening again. i firstly want to say i'm glad to hear that we're actually going to enforce the law for once in the city. and i'm also glad to know that we're getting people into treatment that they're accepting it as well. um, i also agree with commissioner walker that we should agendize items before speaking on it, but my question to you, chief, is, is

there a way for the because i'm also upset at obra stone for taking all my questions around apec. but is there a way for communities to assist sfpd while all officers are being brought forward to help is my one question for you, if you can. go ahead. oh yeah, no. is it 2 minutes or 1 minute or what is two minutes? so thank you for letting me speak. my name is mark bruno. i recently encountered pleasantly, of course, chief scott at a forum on crime in north beach and we discussed very briefly there are one thing that would help with the homeless. so i've worked with the homeless for over 22 years. i used to work in the district attorney's office at and i used to be head of a commission here on the board of the graffiti advisory board with ed lee at any rate, i think there's a way we can without

thinking about those who are super involved with drugs or super involved with alcohol or other crime that those people like me who are volunteer leaders. i work for saint vincent depaul society for 22 years as a volunteer for can with the help of the police be used as volunteers to work. with those people. and we do it. i mean, we do it successfully and a lot of groups do it. and the point is, we shouldn't forget that many of the people on the street, people who i admittedly mostly choose to work with because i'm afraid of people who are on drugs. so if i if i do work with some people who are greatly involved with drugs, but when i'm with them, they're not. so the people who i mostly work with and my cohorts in north beach are people who we just got somebody inside, a transgender woman who was wonderful person. we've known her for five years, never, ever wanted alcohol or drugs. i mean, she's like an amazing but not atypical person who lives on the street and the hot team, when they were finally called in and the police felt as

one of the police officers said, she's like an oasis to find this person because there aren't that many people like this. but i would say at least 30 or 40% of the people who we who are living out there are facing mental challenges. and we shouldn't forget them for the much more difficult cases that the police need to work with and professional mental health people need to work with, there's a lot of room for volunteers to work with regular folks who find themselves homeless. thank you for your help. thank you. before you leave. thank you. that was a great comment. i actually just have a question. i'm sorry, commissioner yanez, were you were you saying that law enforcement is the reason why people who overdose, overdose, i must have spaced out or something? i just didn't understand the point that you were making. and i was wondering if you wouldn't just reiterate it again, because it sounded to me like you were saying it's law

enforcement's fault or somehow they're doing their job. is it increasing overdoses? that's what i heard. but i could have spaced out. and so i'm just wanted a little to understand that because that doesn't seem right to me. hi there. alan berdahl. i hadn't planned on talking, but i'll follow up from from this prior speaker here, and i think that's what we did here. we heard that as a result of escalating law enforcement, that we're finding more overdose his i think that's what we heard up here. and this wasn't on the calendar. nobody was here to prepared to talk about that, nor are any of you commissioners. but that's a very important topic. but but it's just a little bit of absurd oddity that gets thrown out here in this commission meeting on on something that's not even on on

paper. so nobody's really prepared to address it, but i'll give a stab at it and just say that we have tents on the streets. we have street conditions where drug users are protected and drug dealers are protected. they all happen to be 90 plus percent from one central american country. and everybody thinks it's a big mystery why people are dying on the streets. well, i'll tell you what is not a mystery to most san franciscans. as commissioner yanez. and it's that additional law enforcement is causing overdose deaths. that's not happening. try something else. thank you. good evening. i was just informed by officer barreto that they're going to be fixing the digital poles, poster

boards, that all the districts stations. so i'm hoping that i can go in these district station and see the digital poster boards display made in each of the lobby district stations. so i'm still waiting for that. and thank you for answering that. today is the day of the dead and you know, the tomorrow on today and we're honoring all the our ancestors and the homicides and all the people that have died and their spirits. my son being one. i have his pictures placed at each vigil vigil that they have in all of the places. so i take my pictures along with all the other unsolved homicides. that's on this paper. and i'm pretty sure other mothers and fathers are bringing their pictures to the graveyard and

doing displays up there. so i'm just so glad that there is a day of the dead i bring these pictures with me because i want people to see what i have to go through every day. this is not when i come here. this is not easy to do. i'm just used to doing it now. i'm just used to doing it. but i feel every part of my son's body and his mind. i leave with his decaying body. he here. i want people to know that my son was full of life. he was a young boy who was murdered at and still today, no justice. still today. the case is inside. solved i don't know about the my who is my homicide inspector right now. i'm not sure if they change up because they keep

changing. thank you. for members of the public would like to make i'm sorry for members of the public that have any information regarding the murder of aubrey abacus. you can call the anonymous 24/7 tip line at. (415)!a575-4444. commissioners, that is the end of public comment line item six director's report discussion report on recent activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to counter any of the issues raised for future commission meeting. so currently we go. so currently we have. 668 cases that have been opened so far this year and we have closed 610 cases. we have 316 cases currently pending and we've sustained 48 cases so far. we have 21 cases. who is investigate have gone past the nine month period. and of those 21 cases, 18 of those cases are

are told there are seven cases that are pending decision and outcomes from the commission. and there are 87 cases, cases pending outcomes from the chief's office. we've already brought in and accepted the consent calendar. i won't go through any of those numbers. they are online. if folks wish to look through the specific numbers in terms of the weekly trends so far from this week and last week, the highest percentage of allegations that have come into the office have been 14% for neglect of duty, alleging that the officers failed to take required action as asked from the public. the complete breakdown of the 85 allegations that have come in this week are, as always, listed online on at the website at in terms of the district breakdown, the highest precinct this week came from mission station station over an incident where

there was an allegation that the officers used unnecessary force on a juvenile during an arrest that resulted in injuries. the full breakdown of the allegations and the precincts and divisions is also online on the website in terms of audit, this week, we have sent over the draft of the last audit and we're waiting for responses from the department. we have no cases that are in closed session this week, but we also have here in the audience today senior investigator brant bacon and. our chief deanna rosenstein, who is also here with us today. for folks that are interested in contacting the agency, you can contact us directly at sf gov. org. or you can contact us at

the office directly at (415)!a241-7711. i'll reserve my comments for the agenda items that include information from dpa until those agenda items are called. that concludes my report for this week. uh, commissioner kevin benedicto. thank you. just a quick question. i was looking at the, uh, at the consent calendar items and i noticed there's a clear breakdown there between sfpd and sf sheriff's office referrals. the i guess i should know this for our weekly numbers, like the 668 or the overall numbers and the 592, are those the combined numbers are those reflect only the sfpd numbers. those are not the combined numbers. those numbers specifically are the numbers for the police department. the numbers. and information for sheriff's department is managed and handled separately. just to avoid the confusion. so any

numbers that i'm repeating here for and on those items, especially those found in the agenda items are specifically for sfpd, exclusively. okay. thank you. uh, sergeant, public comment for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item six, the director's report, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. line item seven commissioner reports, discussion and possible action commissioner reports will be limited to a brief description of activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determine whether to counter any of the issues raised for future commission meeting. commission president's report, commissioners reports and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. commissioner walker. i thank you. i would. it's on. um i would actually

like to ask that there be an agenda item on the, the apec coordination for next week if we could get it. just to update the public and have it more clear that we're able to discuss it. i also would like to have an agenda item to define for the commission on what it says on the calendar, which commission discussion on unplanned events and activities. the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. i think we need to really get clear, so the public is informed of when we're going to be discussing an opinionating on things rather than just getting crime information from the chief. during his report or our report. so i would like to have that agendized as well. that's it. commissioner benedicto. all

right. thank you. um vice president carter. overstone just a couple of updates for me. last since our last meeting, commissioner walker and i attended the quarterly officer of the month ceremony that was held here at city hall. and i like to congratulate those officers. they were congratulated as well for really going above and beyond the call of duty in their work and their well deserved recognition. their additionally, i'd like to note two members of the public that department general order 7.01, which you've heard myself and commissioner yanez talk extensively about. we also had guests from our juvenile commission come and talk about it. a draft is now posted on the sfpd website for public comment. you heard the last time we had a show up here is director of policy, janelle caywood. talk about that's a really valuable process. so if you have specific comments about that general order, you can make those comments and you will get an individualized response from subject matter experts. it can

be a very helpful way to provide input that general order 7.01 for those who don't know is an update to our general order on dealing with juveniles. it's a very important general order. it's revising it as the first of part of many steps to expand a pre-arrest diversion program that i know commissioner yanez now both strongly committed to, as well as clarifying what our post-arrest diversion looks like when the commission met about it recently, there was strong support among the commission about expanding our diversion options for youth. so i do encourage members of the public to look at that general order. thank you. just a couple of updates for me. recent commissioner myself, commissioner walker and commissioner benedicto interviewed a number of candidates for a policy analyst position for the commission. we found someone who we thought would be an excellent candidate for the job. however, we are not able to extend that person an offer because as the mayor froze

the position on, i had made a promise to miss brown on that. once we hired this person, the first thing that i would assign the person to do is to put together a presentation on our river ward policy and look at what other jurisdictions are doing. put a presentation together so we know now what what best practices look like today. our department hasn't hasn't paid out an award and i believe over a decade and miss brown comes to every meeting and speaks passionately, not just about her own experience and her own loss, but but victims of all unsolved homicides as i because it doesn't appear that we'll have a policy analyst in the near future. for i would like to agendize that for a future meeting in the near future. a presentation on what other

jurisdictions are doing in terms of their reward policies and any recommendations that any recommended reforms to our own policy. some some aspects of our policy are very restric active at at first blush, at least in terms of what qualifies someone to actually receive an award. and if people out there have information that would be valuable in an extremely serious crime, they should be incentivized appropriately to come forward. so i'm going to ask that the department and the police, the police department and the department of police accountability work together on this and inform the public and the commission on this important issue. the other thing i'll just address that has come up, commissioner walker just addressed it, and it was echoed by certain members of the public is about whether something is properly proper, addressed by

the commission is properly agendized. and this is something that we've actually discussed recently. but just a friendly reminder for, for example, in the chief's report, commissioner , issues are not confined to asking questions about issues that the chief affirmatively raised in his report. what we are confined by are the words of the agenda which notify the public in advance of the meeting of what the topic of discussion will be. so, for example, the chief's report covers any public safety concerns. it covers any incidents or events occurring in san francisco. have an impact on public safety. so when commissioner yanez raised the issue of law enforcement practices and procedures as it relates to the fentanyl crisis, that is clearly an incident occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. it also is a public safety concern that is why, for example, when commissioner byrne brought up a chronicle, a recent

chronicle article. that was also well within on what was agendized on item number five, there has been a recent effort to, i think, use state public meeting laws to silence dissenting view on the commission. i think it's a really unfortunate practice and i think it's really misguided if folks disagree, if commissioners disagree with what another commissioner has said, i think that's great. it's great to have diversity of viewpoint and the best way to address that is to put your name in the queue and explain why you think that person is wrong and ultimately the public will decide who has the better of the argument. but i think it's a dangerous path when we try to silence open and frank public discussion on matters of intense public interest, that that if clearly that clearly fall within the notice on the agenda. commissioner yanez thank you.

vice president carter ulverstone and thank you for that clarification. i'm i wasn't available. unfortunate as a result of some technical well as a result of i wasn't available physically to be at the meeting last month. but i do want to convey to the chief my appreciation for the presentation and i want to encourage us to replicate that program across every single unit in our department. and increase staffing as soon as possible, because that is definitely the best practice that we have in this department and i cannot celebrate their efforts and outcomes enough. so i really appreciated that presentation a few weeks ago and needed to say that public. lee i also want to acknowledge that it is the first day of indigenous american heritage month. we hear some drumming downstairs because

there is a ceremony going on downstairs. tomorrow is the los muertos and there is a big celebration in the mission every year that i know is supported by the police department and the mission station. and we rarely have incidents, but i do, you know, thank mrs. brown for bringing up the fact that these opportunities for people to publicly celebrate the lives of their lost ones are something to celebrate and part of the culture and fabric of san francisco. so i do want to make sure that folks are aware of those developments. as far as my report goes, i do want to agendize the community policing manual, which has been in development. i believe that has been perusing and providing. some feedback or is going to generate some feedback. i will also be chiming in on that. it is a great piece of it's a great

manual, it's a great document and i know that on november second we're also supposed to be having the district station community policing plan. so i would like to agendize that for as soon as possible. so that we could discuss our progress towards making in advancing those metrics, in those plans, in addition, i've been asked by the youth commission, the juvenile probation commission, to step out of this meeting next week for a second and provide an update at at the juvenile probation commission meeting about our progress towards the pre booking program, aim towards establishing a pre booking program for juveniles. there have been meetings, ongoing meetings with the community assessment and referral center. we've made some progress and the juvenile probation department commission, i believe, will be putting out a resolution supporting and encouraging the

city to adopt the pre booking program. in addition to that, that i, i, i just want to encourage people, if there was any misunderstanding about what my, my comment earlier was to look at the american journal of public health march edition. we can't arrest our way out of odds . the drug bust paradox. please read that paper and then you will understand where my comments came from. thank you, commissioner yee. thank you very much there. vice president carter. also, i just want to just report on the town hall meeting on october 19th regarding the officer-involved shooting it chinese consulate. on october the 9th explained a lot. when you get to see the body worn cameras. so i thank

the chief and his team for putting that forward. i know in my community there was a lot of questions and unanswered questions and we have to wait until the investigate action happens and come out and report it. as you saw, the person reported was a person armed of a gun. second time, a person armed with a gun. so we're responding, officer or the sergeant respond and you know, if you have time watch the town hall meeting october the 19th. explain it all again, i want to thank the team for that and explain and set aside a lot of fears in our community what was happening over there. thanks again. thank you, chief. sergeant, could you take us to public comment, please? uh, at this time, the public is now welcome to make public comment regarding line item seven. the commission reports. if you'd like to make

public comment, please approach the podium. alan burdell the, the. i don't think there's anyone in this room that is suggesting that we should censor any commissioner. that's quite the contrary. we're talking about when the comments are made, are they made after they're agendized or not? that's simply it. it's not complicated and we want the public to have a chance to address something like that. it's not that we don't want to hear it. in fact, i would encourage the commissioner to come forward with that study and we'll have a nice talk about it. why not schedule that? why not put that on the agenda? there's no way to dispel that off the cuff. none of us can prepared for that. but you have the benefit of sitting up there after having read that study and then lectured to all of us. that's not fair. that's not the way this is designed. and to say

that it's censorship is a double insult. can't you see that? so that's really all i have to say. i'd give that some thought. thank you. and that is the end of public comment line item eight discussion and possible action to adopt revised department general order 5.01 use of force policy and the proper control of a person which reflects changes made to the tire deflation devices, discussion and possible action. we have lieutenant stephen jonas here. if there are any questions i believe we've discussed this, but we're prepared to answer any questions or have a discussion on it as well. we have discussed this policy quite a bit in the last few months. i, for folks recollect ation. this was an

issue where there was two parallel policy revisions happening at once. there was the geo revision to clear verify standards for when officers can preemptively use spike strips and the commission also separately took action because the department had suspended their use pending the policy revision. the commission took action on to immediately re-allow their use pending the revision. i want to commend lieutenant jonas for his role in revising the policy. i also want to commend janelle caywood for her work on it. but in particular, i think lieutenant jonas gave a presentation that was grounded in data and evidence and the, the evidence was really overwhelming that use of spike strips preemptively was an unmitigated good in terms of arrests, recovery of firearms and almost no negative consequences and allows us to avoid dangerous chases. um, i

just think it was a really great example of providing the commission with, with the data that it needs to make informed policy judgments. so thank you so much for that. and i will make a motion on. oh, wait, i'm sorry. i see commissioner benedicto, but also chief wanted to just ask you, will there be any will the department be requesting any delay in implementation on the only thing that this will require is training to some people already have had the training and they are using it, but training and i will. think that we can probably we do need a delay because apec is going to put a damper in. so i would say 60 days, maybe. i don't know. steve, do you have any any thoughts on that? yeah, chief, thank you. i think at this point we already have

several units that are trained in the policy, basically spearheaded this tactic and they are back actively using it. i do think there is a training period that is going to be required. it's hard for me to speak to what that period is going to be with apec and the need to put together the training materials. but the bulletin that was issued after the commission resolution does address that. the units that already are trained and implementing the tactic or reauthorized and other officers will be authorized as soon as they have undergone that training. right. and if i recall, the dgo also has that language that you have to have training in the specific type of tdd in order to deploy it. right that is regards the type of equipment that they're using different types of tire deflation devices would would need different training. you know, a product a versus product b, not so much the tactics of

use during a pursuit. i see. perfect. so even if you had the training you that makes sense. okay, perfect. so, so, so it seems like this could be the rare case where we could implement without a delay because we already have the resolution plus additional guidance from the department on tactics. but i'll defer to the department on this. yes. so let's let's if i could ask the commission because of apec, we're going to be a lot of the officers will won't be working their regular assignments. so at least a 30 day just to get us past the next two weeks with apec. and then i agree with you on that. i mean, i think the language is clear in terms of you got to be trained before you deploy this. so we should be okay. there and then we'll train, you know, as as we do, as we train. all right. in that case, i will make a motion to adopt the with a 30 business day

delay in implementation. and i see commissioner benedicto. great. thank you. robertson. i just wanted to confirm, you know, we. there were no other changes made to the other than the tire deflation device. and i saw there were some slight cleanup in the way we abbreviated o.c. or dgo throughout, but there are no other changes that came out of meet and confer from the version that correct just the addition of the section on tire deflation devices. okay, great. thank you. that's all. commissioner yee. thank you very much. vice president robertson. again, i guess if we do pass it there today, it's a delay not to be used. if necessary during the. do i understand that correctly? no no, i'm sorry. what was the question, commissioner? the use of tire deflation device, will that be in operation to be used

for, i guess, units that are qualified, trained during the apec conference? they are already authorized. those are authorized. so if anybody is trained, can can use it right now. okay. for the commission resolution. so this out of curious, what is the i guess the amount units or officers qualify for this? do you have the specialized the plainclothes units all have been okay. and then go ahead. oh, yeah. i was just about to say. but the uniform officers like in routine patrol or regular patrol haven't used it in this fashion. so those are the officers that we need to be trained but specialized. we're already doing it. so and since there are so many law officers in san francisco at that time, california highway patrol, do

they have authorization to use it if necessary? and san francisco, they have their own policies as far as pursue an intervention. you know, and i believe they do have spike strips. and you know, pit maneuvers. so but they have to abide by their own policies. okay. thank you very much, mr. chief. thank you. is there a second on the motion? i'll second it for members of the public. they'd like to make public comment regarding line item eight, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. mr. yanez is yes. commissioner burn. yes. commissioner burn is yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter woodstone yes. vice president carter is yes. you have six yeses. line item nine presentation and discussion on the increase of use of force on people of color. at the request of the commission

discussion. good evening, commissioners. vice president carter robeson, chief director henderson. i'm catherine mcguire. i'm the executive director of the strategic management bureau, and we do have a few slides giving

background for the public on use of force more generally and that is in alignment sort of with some of the recommendations from the us, doj that we continue to ensure that the public understands us. what we are talking about when we talk about use of force. and in addition to that, jason cunningham will talk about the actual numbers reflected in the quarterly activity and data report and sergeant rivera from the professional standards and principal policing unit will also ncri team will also talk through some of the approaches that the department has implemented to try to reduce bias or disparate use of force among other types of contact. so with that, i'll just start with some background on use of force generally for the public. i'm not not going to purport myself to be the legal minds on this

commission action, but i'll cover very high level general information. so according to the national institute of justice, there's no standard and universally agreed upon definition of use of force for law enforcement agencies. the many thousands of which there are in the united states use and even more generally, the international association of chiefs of police. i'm going to move over to this mic, the international association of chiefs of police defines use of force as the amount of effort required by police to compel compliance by an unwilling subject. excuse me, and the us supreme court in graham v connor established that those evaluating whether a use of force was reasonable should consider only the information known to the officer who applied the force at the time of the incident. so these are very general kind of background

information. just the fact that there is no real universal set of rules that there is a standard industry definition, so to speak. and then of course, just the very, very high level guidance that the supreme court provides with respect to how use of force should be considered in hindsight. the, of course, is sfpd's highest priority being. i'm just going to read this because it is directly from our use of force policy. you all know it very well. the public should hear it again. the san francisco police department's highest priority is safeguarding the life, dignity and liberty of all persons. officers shall demonstrate this principle in their daily interactions with the community they are sworn to protect and serve. the department is committed to accomplishing this mission with respect and minimal reliance on

the use of force by using rapport building communication, crisis intervention and de-escalate tactics before resorting to force whenever feasible. this is just to say, and then we go into a little bit more detail here about the use of force policy. but this is just to say and demonstrate the more restrictive active and more robust effort that sfpd and the commission and dpa have made to ensure that our use of force policy is not only. tighter than some of the other definitions of uses of force out there in the law enforcement communities, but also provides for documentation in and analysis and really deeper understanding of when and why and how we use force. and as

you can see, there's additional sort of information for the public from our policy here that use of force must be for a lawful purpose. and in the following circumstance uses force may be used very shorthand to effect a lawful arrest, detention or search to overcome resistance or to prevent escape or to prevent the commission of a public offense in defense of others or in self-defense. to gain compliance with the lawful order and to or to prevent a person from injuring themselves. if, however, an officer is prohibited from using lethal force against a person who presents only a danger to themselves and does not pose an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to another person or officer, an and with that background, we have the

data that we present in the q&a for the quarterly activity and data reports. rich really demonstrates sort of our levels, the amount that we report on use of force and jason is here to talk a little bit about that big quarter four increase in in rates of dispatch 80 between african american and white individuals. and so i'm going to hand it over to him. and that is really the core of this presentation today. gets them right up there. good evening, vice president carter overstone commissioners chief scott director henderson. my name is jason cunningham. i'm the program manager. out of the professional standards and principled policing unit where i

lead the business analysis team, we are charged with among other things, the generation and publishing of our quarterly activity and data report. so we'll spend a little bit of time going over the per capita racial disparity comparison data point that is calculated and provided in the data for the specific question that was asked of us was to take a look at what contributed to the increase in that number with use of force and african americans in reporting in the fourth quarter of 2022 to get there, we're going to do a quick overview of this particular chart as i think it's the one that stood out along with what goes into it and how it's calculated first. first, this chart is not the actual per capita. the disparity per race or ethnicity. let me say that one more time. this chart is not the actual per capita disparity per race or ethnicity. that information is actually found elsewhere in the report. i think it's page 4545 of the fourth quarter report.

instead, this chart shows citywide use of force data from q1 to q4 2022 individuals receiving force are listed as black or african american 9 to 25 times more often than white individuals. when comparing the population per 1000 residents of each. that's a long sentence. so put another way, this number can be referred to as the number of times larger number that is in the fourth quarter. 25 is the number of times larger. the larger the per capita number for black individuals is as compared to the white individuals per capita number to draw my pen. this number measures the difference between black per capita disparity number and white per capita disparity number. this is done through simple arithmetic, which is the

division of the black per capita number, black per capita disparity number with the white per capita number. this means that the number of times larger number 25in this case can increase under a few different conditions is given that it is based on two per capita numbers that can change in either direction. every quarter i have five listed, i'll read them real quick. the black per capita number can increase while the white per capita number stays the same. you can have the black per capita number increase and the white per capita number increase. however, the black per capita number increases more. you can have the black per capita number remaining the same, while the white per capita number decrease as you can have the black per capita number and the white per capita number decrease. however, the white per capita number decreases more per

or you can have the black per capita number increase and the white per capita number decrease. so in this case, scenario four played out in the fourth quarter of 2023. in real numbers, uses of force against black and white individuals decreased out between q3 and q4. if you take a look at the chart on the bottom left, we see that in red moving from left to right per row. both counts decreased. however, the count for white individuals decreased much more dramatically when calculating our per capita disparities for q4 2023, we find for black individuals. we're just going to take the number of uses of force. that's for red number. you're going to divide it by the number of individuals in the population, your blue number. multiply that by 1000 will give you your per capita number. it's one point or sorry, 3.189. for white individuals, we have 44 divided by 339,050. multiplying

that by 1000 gets us 2.129 per capita for white individuals to then find the number of times larger. it's simply arithmetic of 3.189 divided by 0.129 gets you to 24.72, which we round up to 25. next slide. so we pulled in another chart from 2023 just to illustrate a different example. so this plays out a little bit differently in 2023. in this case, our fifth option is noted where the black disparity increased slightly and the white disparity decreased it. so in this case, again, red number divided by blue by blue number multiplied by 1000 for both black individuals and white individuals dividing the black per capita number with the white per capita number gets us to 21 or 21.22, which we round down to 21. i'll pause here because that's a lot, but i am open to

any thoughts questions or i can continue. i think you should just finish the presentation and then we'll ask any questions at the conclusion. okay. slide so i was also asked to produce some statistics on use of force applied to homeless individuals and individuals that are under the age of 18. you'll note we have the raw count located on the chart. percentages didn't make it into the slides. i apologize by percentage. the numbers on the charts use for homelessness you'll see between 14 and 11% it and for juveniles between four and a half and 3.5% so i'll be followed by sergeant rivera. good evening. this part it is to address some of the

department's commitments to reducing some of these disparities. more pointed to your question, commissioner yanez. the department takes a comprehensive approach, not to mention that this topic is complex and challenging. asked across the country, we law enforcement agencies everywhere to this department's commitment includes several initiatives. we'll start with the benchmark dashboard. this is a new way of collecting expanded data regarding all our stops. this is a forward thinking, proactive approach to anticipated upcoming state legislation things the state requires for us to report it helps us understand both in some internal and external factors, to some of the disparities. and a lot of this data tends to inform policy changes. some of that data was used when we revised 5.01. it's several different iterations as it was partly used in the development of the. 5.17, which

was the bias free policing policy as well as our own internal 1107 policy, which is prohibited, prohibited of prohibiting of discrimination and harassment and retaliation. some of our diversity efforts, a lot of effort went into creating our diversity, strategic plan. this was a cry the collaborative reform initiative recommends an 89.1 that was initiated through a working group where objectives and metrics were developed with the goal of institutionalizing the hiring and retention of a diverse and high performing workforce. the plan addresses diversity at the department level as well. down to the unit level and through through the ranks. the chief's advisory forums have recently been re invigorated. a lot of effort has gone into to preparing those applications and setting those

forums up, those applications have been sent out. many have been received and they're in in review by the chief and his staff. there's an educational component to understanding some of the diversity and understanding how to approach disparities. one in part of that education are the emphasis on these sojourn trips where the students or the participants engage in civil rights stores. this this is all part of the policy education, accountability and training approach in regards to training. one of the aspects is this bias training the department has engaged in for the past two years. it's a two year study began in 2021, so it is concluding this year with a report to follow. and then further further in understanding the disparities, understanding that the department has somewhat limited resources, an and it

would behoove us to reach out to larger academic institutions, better prepared to help understand. and you can see here there's a list of several academic institutions. these are not exactly what you call lackluster institutions. rather, these are high performing ing, high level institutions. you can see uc berkeley, stanford university of chicago university of california, san francisco, as well as some specialized institutions. the center for policing equity, which we have engaged in with the past. and i think they have done a presentation to this commission and we are reengaging them for a second round of their evaluation of the department and some of the progress that we've made. that's the end of the department's presentation, i believe myself, director mcguire and mr. cunningham are available for your questions. commissioner

yanez thank you. vice president carter overstone thank you for the presentation. um for the public's information and clarification. this is all self reported data that we're relying this on right. uh, actually, no use of force data is collected separate from, um, the mandates of the board. so use of force is collected under 5.01 which was promulgated by this commission. it has all the data points that are required for collection. and we use that data to calculate these numbers. great that's even better. what what is the department's analysis of why this continues to increase as.

so i think you've probably asked the hardest question in social science, and one of the hardest questions that we ask ourselves determining the why based off of these data points and the hundreds, thousands of others that flow through our offices does require a level of analytical capacity that generally doesn't exist in municipal government. this is part of the reason why we do have a slide showing the partnerships that we work with. center for policing equity has a room full of phds that will help us do math to help get after a why. and oftentimes their their answer might not get fully to statistical significance in kind of the academic parlance, but they might not be able to get it to a full why why it's a challenge. one of the things i

say about the da is it's generally a report that's describing what and where and how many it's not really a report that talks about why, partially because of the challenges we have with analytical capacity at our level . and so what have our partnerships with these very highly regarded university institutions indicate? covid is our issue. i am not prepared to pitch what those said off the top of my head. i do know that a report from the center for policing equity was completed in 20. i want to say 19, perhaps 2020. that was shared with the commission. i know that the center for policing equity is current, undergoing another round of what it calls its city report that should be coming out in the next 12 to 24 months. that that's where i am on those particular analyzes. chief. the

report that manager cunningham is referring to, there is some analysis and that that report looked at use of force and stops as well. is my recollection of it. there were some recommendations which i believe we implemented most, if not all of them, in terms of things that would give us better data to determine some of the whys we don't have all the answers, commissioner. you know, we've we've worked with you know, spark lab at stanford. we worked with cal, california. i'm not california i'm sorry. the center for policing equities. we don't really have the answer to the whys in terms of some of these disparities issues. but what we do know is, is that some of the policies that we've put in place has reduced both the rate of disparity, particularly against the black african-american demographic and use of forces

overall. so we do believe there's something there in terms of that issue. the hope is that between the things that have been mentioned in this presentation, the dashboard and some of the other things we're doing, we can call that out further offending rates are part of the equation as well. you know, who are the offenders? what's the demographic like being able to call out that self-initiated activity as opposed to calls for service from the public is another factor that i think we've gotten better at in terms of understanding how many of these calls that we engage with the demographic pool are are calls from the public as opposed to officers cell initiated activity and so those things are all in the works. and the dashboard hopefully will answer at least the what part of some of the questions and then we can get maybe to some of the why. like, for instance, how many of our

activities are command directed? you know, if we're saying go out and do enforcement in the tenderloin on users or dealers or whatever, that's a command directed enforcement. it's not saying who is saying enforce on the activity, how much that plays into this. we didn't know before because we weren't capturing that data. this dashboard, we will capture that data. so i do think there are some revelations that will be learned and gleaned from what we've put in place i think is going to take at least some time to have a comparison point and data points to really understand what it means. but i'm really hopeful that some of these these implementations will will help us get to the why like like the command directed activity. you know, if we have the platoon commanders and the captains telling the officers, i need enforcement on this intersection because it's a high traffic injury corridor and we see a disparity in that intersection,

then we look at other things, right? we haven't been able to do that because we haven't been capturing the data. now we will be able to capture that data in the very near future. so i think we will have more answers to bring to this commission and future reports in terms of really understanding what's driving some of this and whether this is something that we can actually impact or not. so the new use of force policy started being implemented in may, right, of 2022, the last revision. yes right. and so the may revision and then there was a december revision that both each of which went into effect with different thresholds. but these numbers have been collected as a result of that policy starting in may. and when the policy rolled out, you know, we expected an increase because this, as you just pointed out, is a lot more stringent than what most jurisdictions are reporting on. and we expected an increase

maybe the first quarter while people were being trained. but in reality, after our training, the numbers continue to climb despite the, you know, clarification of about the methodology about how we got to this presentation because there was a slide that was omitted because it was easier to present the numbers, which made it seem as if there was less disproportionate impact on use of force. but in reality, even after training, even after six months of implementation on the numbers continue to increase at least into the fourth quarter. what explain is that? well if you look at those numbers and i do, i think there was some fluctuations, we've changed the criteria twice in the past year and a half. but i do believe there were some fluctuations in in terms of the types of forces where they actually saw

increases and we're talking about the lower level, you know, control holes, those types of forces where we had the most significant increases as this is not a why answer that i'm about to give, but i do believe that analysis of what type of incidents that have has driven the contacts in the first place is important. the important part is data that we capture some of that, but we weren't capturing it in full detail. so the other the other part of this is, you know, we really have to dig into these these use of force reports and understand kind of how force was used, because is one thing that the force, if it's within the policy that's that's one thing to look at. but the other thing is trying to glean patterns as to why it's happening with one demographic over the other. is it is it

because of the activity that of how we're policing? you know, that's a question that we always look at. you know, we are we are. i think not think i know we're making more arrests than we have in the last few years. and with that is some of where those numbers are being driven, because that means more contacts, that means more confrontation. and sometimes people don't want to be arrested. so we know that that is factual in terms of more activity you have there's a potential for an increase in use of force, but the why is still the magic question in terms of the demographic disparity. and we're not we're not really there yet in terms of really fully understanding what the why is. in your list of organizations and partnerships. you know, some of them go back to 2017. so a good six years of a partnership there. are there metrics that

are tied into the analysis that is being provided by some of these partnerships that we can that we can utilize to begin looking for forward to measure this against. yeah. so one of the hopefully phase is in the near future with the center for police inequities was the second look at and i think i think to your question is that second look we wanted to look at whether for some of the things that we've implemented have really had an impact. now it's going to be a little bit difficult because of the change in policy. and that's why we i think this commission had asked for this and we've done it to be able to kind of filter to have a comparison point between use of forces that were added because of the policy changes compared to what it would look like if the policy didn't change. so we can compare the same set of factors. i think that's going to

be important. but we also have to really factor in the policy changes and really call down on what that disparities are with those use of forces that would not have been captured three years ago before the policy changes. so hopefully the. with the second go around, some of that will be part of that analysis. and may give us some answers. but we are excited to do that. there's another thing that we're trying to get off the ground is called compstat for justice with the center for policing equities. that will hopefully give us some infrastructure to just like our any compstat process which is analyzing data, asking those questions. it'll give us more of an ability to do that for this particular issue. they've done this with some other departments around the country. we've taken a look at it and we're been working with them for a couple of years now, trying to get that off the ground in san francisco, which i do believe we will get that off the ground. but

basically it's a compstat that looks at these these specific issues to try to figure out the why. so that's encourage saying, you know, at least give us another tool to delve into this based on what we've learned since the implementation of 501. are there training developments as a result of patterns that you've noticed that you will be implementing moving forward? the training, the ongoing training is really goes back to a lot of what you heard with with the cmc award that you gave sergeant guerin. you know, the basic. concept of coehorn nation and communication and those types of tactical things. when they're done right, they do tend to provide better outcomes and a reduction in force. so that's ongoing. in terms of specific training, in terms for something

like the trauma informed care, some of the stuff that cit is doing, is there a plan to expand that because those units usually have a lot more success at de-escalation, at least from the presentation that i saw two weeks ago. so i mean, we have something internal. we have a model that is impactful, that is effective, and that is, you know, less damaging to those folks that are in need. and i don't understand why we don't expand. we have four officers in that particular program, as far as i understand, right from the presentation. you know, so there's two things with with that. the idea behind cit is train the entire department. so everybody's using those tactics. i mean, i think if the notion is that one unit will take on an all of the day to day work that's necessary to police the city, that to me is not the answer. for to expand cit, make

they respond to, you know, more of the critical incidents, more of the incidents that require more expertise than an everyday patrol officer or they get called out. you know, we have our negotiators that get called out. but the idea is to train everybody in cit tactics, which we have well on our way to doing that. i mean, 99% of the department has been trained on the ten hour cit. and i think we're at 70 or something percent for the 40 hour course. so we're still we're still working toward that, but we need everybody trained with cit tactics. that unit that has an expertise that is very helpful, but they can't handle all the work that's out there in terms of this issue. you know, they're they're a resource more than the savior of all. so i just want to make sure we're clear on that because unless we have have, you know, a two, 300 person cit unit patrol officers are going to respond to

these day to day calls. and a lot of these calls require cit tactics to be implemented. time and distance and all the things that we learned in cit training. so that's the idea is to get as many people trained as we can, as we have this resource, this core unit that does, you know, some of the higher functioning work and they are the ones that are keeping this work going in the department. so that's really important as well. i wouldn't see a problem with a 300 unit or cit staffed unit, but but one of the questions around sojourn, you use sojourn, you know, a lot where we talk a lot about sojourn, how many cohorts have been through sojourn five, five cohorts and how is sojourn paid for? it is it's originally there was a donation made to the company that we are working with which is sojourn to the past. some of it is paid for by the department but that to get it off the ground, there was a

donor that who we don't know who it is that actually made a donation to sojourn to help us get this started for the outset. and so the additional cohorts have all been funded by the city. when the officers go on these trips, are they going on our staff time? yes yes. so we're losing officers to go to. sergeant, is there an outcome? i'm directly connect and as an expectation to sojourn cohort officers, are we measuring whether any of those officers that are going to sojourn and returning after that experience have any improved outcomes, whether it comes to use of force disproportion unit, minority contacts? are we measuring or looking for that information? i think time will tell on that. look let's be fair about this. what training? out of all the training we do, i can't think of a training where we can say, you took this training and there's an outcome with in this area. so

so, you know, not that that's not a good idea when we can do that, but i don't think we do that even with cit, we know we've seen reductions in use of force. we know we've seen better outcomes. but that's anecdotal at best in terms of really saying that cit is the reason that all these things happen, because there's a whole universe of other things that we're doing as well. so it's going to be very clear on this expectation that, you know, sojourn is going to be anything different than any other training. i've been asked so many times that this commission, how are we going to change the culture? this is one way to do it in terms of really having people understand what these issues are and doing it with the community who are the most impacted by these issues that we're talking about and having these discussions. so officers really understand what this work is about from that particular lens. so i don't think it's a fair assessment to say, you know, bill scott went to soldier and so does that

equate to less use of forces to better contacts? we have a whole universe of training, and i don't think we do that on any of our training. i wish we could, but we don't. and but yet we're seeing improvements across the board on some of these issues. so i think soldier is in the bucket with the rest of the training. i can't tell you that. you know, every you know, the 200 plus officers that have done it. but but i can tell you what they most of them have have shared with us that this training was enlightening, that it made a difference. they see things a little bit differently and the community engagement piece of this is off the charts in terms of having these discussions. i think on the one you went, we didn't have we had a few community members, but that has really been one of the best features of this that we have in these very difficult discussions with members from our community around this issue. and when we get back home, you know, there's obvious this impacts. i can tell you some of

the officers have continued those relationships. you know, with booker t, washington foundation and other community, 80 people that have gone on those trips. so i think that within itself is worth has a value because that's how we're going to change this. that's a part of how we're going to change this. i mean, if we're trying to change culture, obviously it's very difficult to define every step of the way. but i just find it challenging to accept that we will continue to invest in strategies that aren't necessarily attached to an outcome in an evidence based world. you know, the public demands improve safety. the public demands, you know, a reduction in the disproportionate minority impacts and anecdotally, you're saying this is having an impact. but on paper it's not. so yeah, that's that's why we asked for this presentation. i wanted an

analysis. this we got a lot of numbers and explanation of things that are happening that we are attempting, but i don't necessarily see a plan as far as we're going to measure this investment and we're going to have a percentage of an improvement when i work for funded organizations is there's an outcome attached to every single cent, and these are taxpayer dollars. and we really do need to improve our policing strategies to create safety equitably is what our task is and why we ask these tough questions. is there understood. i would just say this, though, and i'm going to reemphasize this in police training, we got officers right now spending a lot of we are spending a lot of money and time on mobile field force tactics. there's not an academic study that's going to say that was the reason that this event or that event was

successful or not successful. so i don't think it's a fair assessment. to tag this, you know, evidence based thing. we train a lot and a lot of different areas and there's rarely ever an academic study that found close our training and say is this i'm not saying that that's a bad idea but what i'm saying, it just doesn't happen. and everyone we don't have the capacity to make it happen on our own to it's it just doesn't happen. so if that's the way we're going to look at our training, we wouldn't be doing anything. you know, we have to have the ability to train this department . but if we can get an academic study and an academic partner to come in and say, what's working and what's not, that's great. you know, body worn cameras, we believe that there's a benefit to body worn cameras. we don't have an academic study to at least with this department, to prove that. are we going to

disinvest in body worn cameras because of that? no, we're not. so i'm just saying, i think i'm asking for some fairness with this assessment, you know? yeah. if we can get an academic study for sojourn or any other training, we will absolutely do that. but we don't do that on any of our training. and i don't necessarily expect an academic university to tell us how to do your work. that's why i asked for the department to provide an analysis and i still think we're searching for that solution. obviously we and i hope that we continue to at least begin to move the dial in the right direction. as far as minimizing the damage, the impact that is being done to people of color in this city disproportionately. i think that that is something that we need to continue to invest time, energy, resources and a lot of mind power. right

but thank you for the presentation. those are those are my questions. i know that i don't want to take up all this time. so thank you. just a couple clarifying questions for me at the outset. so i just wanted to clarify, sergeant rivera, what exactly you mentioned. i think you said it was around two study with cpe. what what exactly can you just clarify what exactly that means? what will cpe be doing specifically? no but she can. okay okay. no, actually, you probably should take the so the city report that they produced and i think it was 2020 and the and then they came and presented here at the commission on on their report as well. they'll be rerun doing the analyzes that they did there with updated data. so i think the data that they had looked at stopped around 2018. so as you all know

from looking at these these statistics quarter after quarter after quarter, a lot of the numbers have changed. so we're eager to see what they come up with or what they find. but that that's essentially part of it. there's some other aspects to the work that we're going to be doing, including being part of their nationwide. our data will go into their nationwide and effort to national justice database that will allow for them to really dig into some of these issues of disparities and race and the contributing factors to those disparities. that's like their core is they want to get that answer that we all are sitting here asking. so that's we're part of that. um, great. i want to ask you follow up on that, but, but just one other basic question at the outset on slide eight, there's this. when you list out all the

things you're doing and maybe i missed this, i'm sorry, under training, there's bias sync to your study. can you just say what that study is? i'll talk a little bit about that. so bias sync is a web based by bias training or not anti-bias training, really. and it's. was implemented, i believe it was 2020 or late 2019. so there's web based training. there's vignettes there is it's video based, there's know question and answer and tests and all that stuff. but the idea is with the bias training, it it should not, in our belief, be a kind of a one and done where you're training, you know, the entire department and then you don't touch it for forever. and so this training was meant to basically reinforce course some of the principles that are learned how to deal with, you know, implicit bias strategies

to, uh, to, to miss negate the implicit biases that we all have and those types of things. so these little vignettes that are sent to the officers and they go on and they do a little online refresher course or not even refresher because this new material periodically that that gives to us that we get in the whole department is doing this. it was a i think it's two year, two year run for this and we'll see kind of how it plays out. but there's no questions and things that the company will ask . and then we get feedback in terms of whether this training is sinking in by, you know, the answers that the officers provide. and in these vignettes. so it gives us a little bit of a glimpse into whether the training is actually at least resonating with with the questions that are part of the process. right. i just wanted to ask about that. so yeah, what is the study piece? the study is

measuring whether the training is working, whether the bias training itself is changing outcomes. yes because part of this is, you know, if you have ever gotten going online and you're taking an implicit bias or your survey or whatever they call it, and you get a series of questions and then it really kind of says, you know, yeah, there implicit biases there. so you do this over time with the training venues and then you take at the end of this another of those type of surveys and see if there is there is improvement in these issues. so it's, it's different than the routine classroom training that we do. but we thought that it was worth the a look great so i guess sometimes we can assess whether training works and in evidence based way that's what we're trying to do. okay. okay great. so it's not like it's not like we're not trying. no no, no, no, no. because i heard you say

earlier too, commissioner janez, that that couldn't necessarily do that. but but that's good that we're doing it in this in this particular place. so. director mcguire, you said that that the round two study from cpp is going to get to the root of why. no, you did not. okay i'm glad. that's why i asked. no, no. they they will rerun their analysis and they they're trying. that's their core kind of mission is to get to that. why? to we all want to know why. because if we have the why, we can address it, we can come up with the right answer to solve the problem. but didn't they tell us why the last time around they i think the extent and we were just struggling with this, but i think the extent to their conclusion was they eliminated sort of the other possible. yes conclusions that race could get into co-mingled with. and said there's still a there's some evidence saying that there's that race plays a factor. but the why. no, i don't recall that

they had a concrete answer. i mean, i guess i just ask i didn't see that in your slides, but they did, as you said, control for the most likely non racial factors for race disparities. they looked at neighborhood demographics. they looked at crime rates in the neighborhood. they looked at whether the suspect was armed or not armed. and none of these are the various other factors. i can't remember them all. none of these factors fully accounted for, the race disparities. in fact, the race disparities, i think, for most of them were pretty still pretty pronounced. right like 15 or more in some cases for black people. right. haven't reviewed the report recently. i'm sorry. so we know that that the why is not race neutral factors, right. i mean, isn't that the why we're trying to ask whether it's a race, a race disparity by itself doesn't mean bias. right. it could just

be that non that legitimate non racial law enforcement considerations are driving it or it could be racial bias. and the way we get to the bottom of the why is we control for all the non racial factors and we see is there still a disparity left over and the report seems to say pretty clearly. yes, right. which also does not necessarily translate to or equate to bias. well, that that is how we determine bias, right? we strip away everything. that's not bias. and if there's something race plays a factor, that's how they phrase it. and that's how race plays a factor in whatever the situation is. but take race out of it for any regression analysis. there is an infinite number of other factors that could be driving along a correlation. we can never, you know, we can never run a regression even with infinity variables. so we run all of the most likely ones. and if there's something still left over there, we say these two things are are

correlated. and that's what they did here. so isn't that the conclusion is no, sorry. the conclusion is racial bias is playing a role in these in the race disparities, correct? i would not agree with that necessarily because one don't have the report in front of me and haven't looked at it recently. and two, i don't think that they could control for everything. i think they even said that. so those are factors. and then i think that never the less, whether how you're saying it is true or otherwise lies the work that we're doing in the department seeks to improve the circumstances. and what would you say if you could, you know, going off what you the point you just made you talked about all of the department's efforts. many of them very laudable efforts recommend it to us by

the us department of justice. what would you say if you could point to a number that's improved and i understand i take the point that you can't always draw a direct line between one program and one outcome, but just overall, since we've been doing these reform aims, what's one number that you would point to and say, hey, that really shows a decrease in in a race disparity or an or in an indicator of bias that you think we should all three of stops uses of force and. searches searches. thank you all three of those metrics as we have watched them over the last 4 or 5, six years have everything's come down right across all demographics. sorry, just to clarify, come down. disparities have come down or by quantity. by quantity. okay. but i'm asking about disparity. yeah the rate of decline for african americans is the highest at for

when you are comparing any one of the other demographics in all three of those, the rate of decline is the highest for african americans. the rate of decline kind of then gets closer. among other population options. and i'd have to look at the metrics again to be specific on any other demographic, but those three for african-american , it's come down at a higher rate, at a faster rate than any others. so those are indicators. the other indicators in searches , it's less about no, it is in searches and yield rates. if you are looking at that, first and foremost, our yield rates are higher than many other jurisdictions in the state, and the yield rates that we when you compare across demographics, it's better than it has been in the past, meaning closer to the same, if not sorry, yield rates

higher for african americans than they are for whites, which usually if you're looking at the at the literature for indicates that searches are conducted on the basis of something other than race. so it's the opposite, right, that it's conducted on the basis of race. when you when you have if your yield rates are similar to one another. oh yes, they're the same. yes. okay. perfect but just to be clear, the total numbers of all of those things went down. but the disparities are as pronounced as ever, right? i think the one area where there has been modest improvement has been the last thing you brought up. yield rate differential. but i would say it's modest. is that fair? well the disparities piece, i don't think we've found the right metric. honestly, i don't i don't think that necessarily the metric that we have in our quarterly analytical and data activity and data report is, is the best. and we're constantly

looking at metrics that might tell a better story right? i mean, i just want to ask chief a more global question, which is, you know, part of a big part of what sparked the us doj's interest in this department was a slew of racist and homophobic text messages that became public through a through a criminal proceeding. you know, commissioner jones asked for this issue to be agendized use of force disparities. according to cpd, cannot be explained by legitimate non-race factors. others. and i think that much, commissioner, i mean director maguire and i agree on that same report from august 2020 also found enormous disparities in traffic stops again could not be explained by non non racial factors, you know, and that was

even more definite than use of force. you know, black people are committing traffic infractions at the same rate as their white peers. so there there is there was again seem to be pointing towards bias. we just had it's you know, we just had a lawsuit settle publicly from a former officer that alleged race racial discriminate action by this department that was not isolated but widespread. and i mean, if you were to read the complaint, you wouldn't know whether it was filed today or it could have been just as easily filed in the 1950s in the deep south. again those are just allegations. you know, and then last year, we had an official district station twitter account not liking the tweets from a racist twitter account that makes light of george floyd's

death. that's the whole purpose of the account. and so i understand that the department's taken many laudable actions, but i think there is a sense that we haven't seen results and i just want i want to i'm curious to hear from you. do you think this department still has a problem when it comes to racial bias? yes, i, i think we have a challenge to figure out what's driving the disparities. and, you know, i definitely, you know , some of the examples you have given are. because i know all the details for all of those issues. i don't. and that some of which can't be shared in this forum. so i don't know if that those are the best examples to illustrate your point, but i'll just say this. we have a challenge with understand why the disparities are being driven . and that's our challenge to try to figure that out. i don't

i'm not saying that there is no possibility that bias exists, but what i'm saying is we're trying to figure out what is driving the disparate is if it's implicit, if it's explicit, or if it's other factors is you know, one of the things that i didn't mention a second ago when i was talking about some of what we are implementing are our wanted bulletins. you know, we didn't have a system that really tracked what are we giving officers every day to go out and look for these people because they are wanted or they have a crime that they committed and they're a person of interest or a suspect or they have a warrant or whatever, you know, what does that look like in terms of the aggregate demographics? i think it's really important. also to factor in and i know this is a part of what's already been discussed here, but, you know, the offending rates and the low the low issues that we have in

terms of who's offending and what we're asking officers to do has to be factored in here and really understood as to what part that that plays into this equation. i'm not going to sit here and say. that the conclusion on these reports is that it's got to be racial bias, because everything else was eliminated. i don't think we really understand as we sit here today, what's driving some of these disparities. and that's our job to figure that out. and that's what we're working with all these other, you know, academic and other other partners to try to figure out. i do think things some things are better. but i do think that we still have the challenges, some of which you just mentioned. but i do think some things are better. great. thank you. chief commission. ye thank you, vice president carter overstone. just

to i guess to this report, since you have capture all the data, i guess, is it possible to go back through it and take a look at looking at which district or station or the neighborhood that you have these disparity high, you know, high incidence of disparity. and to break it down and then go one step further to see where it's happening at. is it continuing of certain office members or, you know, because you have the data now, now and in your second report will come back, you know, if you break it down, is it the tenderloin that's getting it? is it the project where you have to, you know, you you know, you know, have homeless there or people that are taking drugs and you you're affecting the arrests and stuff like that. you know, taking those data anomalies that do happen bring it out and

dissect it. i know you're are you're i guess there are consultants would do that for you. i was wondering if because you're i guess, closer to the grind stone, which is in the city, you know, what's happening in, you know, the you know, what district has the higher incidence. the west side is a little quiet, quieter than than the east side. so just wondering if you can report on that. sure. so one of the cool things in working with data and working with our technology folks that are intimately connected and kind of maintaining our data lake and providing us the tools to kind of get into the data is with enough people and money, you can really do anything unfortunate. we i am very resource constrained as far as an analytics shop, it is me plus right now five people. one of my folks has been tagged out to

support apc. i also have another member who is on military leave for the rest of the year. i would love to is kind of the answer. i do not have the staff at this time to do much deeper analysis than what we're currently cranking out on a quarterly basis in the da. so after the pack you will have more resources available, say in december, i'll have one analyst back. okay and then the issue is whether it's homeless versus i guess call for service and then versus domestic. you know, the data. can you break it up even more when you do get these these reports of disparity that's happening? is it happening during the homelessness? because you have you have a data for the first quarter of this year and the second quarter, as you

reported, it, you had for homeless, you had 77 homeless report and then the second quarter is 67. and this is this out of curiosity, is that part of the i guess, the racial disparity? are there more homeless? you know, use of force when you have have these homeless. are they are they in to the data disparity? so yes. so every number presented tonight is a use of force on an individual and all of those individuals are in one big. i have had force applied against me. but it and then all of those individuals in that bucket have particular data tags attached to them. some of them are race and ethnicity, some of them are age, gender. one of the flags is

homeless. so if you are asking whether those 77 individuals exist in the chart, yes, they are back here. yes, they do exist. there and then the level of resistance to you, have you you have i think it was five five level of resistance to write compliance. passive, non compliant and an active resistance and then sort of and then life threatening is that also broken up or is that just all lumped together for the purposes of this reporting? it is all a single any use of force that is reported is counted as a use of force. there is no severity breakdown in this analysis. so in officer resist says, can i help you up? and he touches the person use of force that depends on the 5.01 standard we're talking about it.

i think that it changed a little bit in between 2021 and 2023. yeah it is a challenge to work with that particular bump in policy. i can't answer that definitively off the top of my head. i'll answer that. that example you just gave. no, that's not a use of force. okay and then my issue is if you can break it down by district because it tells us where this is all happening. is it happening on the east side, north side, west side in the center, san francisco. so i like to see that in the report broken out by district. i'd like to also see if it's, i guess. i guess the i guess you got the quarters and if you can get down drill downs to the to the to the month sometime weekends are heavier than weekdays days where you have the use of force because the amount of calls that

you do get and maybe you can do a comparative which is related to calls versus the disparity. so i will say that the da does contain district by district reporting of the counts of uses of force and i know that we break down by month. i can't remember if we do month and district, but but yeah there's a lot of slices and dices on that. the other fourth coming in the future. for as soon as we can get it all up and running an item that will be of interest to this commission and the public is a dashboard, an interactive dashboard that would allow anyone to slice and dice the data in any way. they would like to see it, just like our vice president carter was on and commissioner yannis, we like to

bring that disparity down now where it's, i guess and i'll just end and thank you very much for the report, commissioner benedicto thank you, vice president carter overstone thank you for that presentation. director mcguire. mr. cunningham. um you know, we've had a fairly robust discussion, so i'll endeavor not to repeat any of the ground covered by my fellow commissioners. i think the were to bring things a little bit back. you know, there are sort of two big questions here, which is i know why what commissioner janez raised and what was raised in the reporting that we saw in mission local, that that in some ways led to this presentation. and there's the big why, which you've spent the last better part of an hour talking about the big why of disparities in san francisco and in law enforcement and they exist and we don't have an answer to the big why and that's been the case since 2016 and before then as well. but since we've really, as a department,

paid close attention to this at that time. and then there's the more recent why in which is why after seeing our disparity his remain stubborn only consistent maybe modest improvements however you want to characterize it, we saw a significant jump, not explainable by just changes in reporting standards. and from the looks of the presentation today, a jump that might be i know it's a little bit of apples, oranges comparison, but when looking at the 2022 into 2023 numbers, just comparing by the same standard might persist. so it wasn't just a single blip. it'd be one thing if it looked like it reverted back to our prior or the same slash modest improvements numbers, but instead, whatever this jump was at the end of 2022 appears to be in some form persisting. and i think that is the urgent reason why we called for this discussion today, because we talk about disparities. almost everything we talk about. but the reason we're today is because, yes, that big why? but also that smaller, more recent,

why. and we've heard explanations. we've provided some potential ones about whether it's could be types of incidents. it could be a specific types of holds commissioner provided a number of potential ideas and i think it's worth taking some time appreciating that we're all constrained, even if it takes additional time to try to dig in to that. more recent, why? because that feels like it's pressing and urgent and new. all of these all the things in the slides, benchmark diversity, recruitment, these changes have obviously been in place for a number of years and have been meant to address the big why. we'll you know, we've we're not going to repeat all our efforts to attempt to change that big. why but i think we need to narrow the focus. i think this was a good first discussion and a good helpful all sort of level setting. but i think that maybe i know our calendar is pretty booked through the end of the year, but sometime in the first

quarter of next year, especially as it looks like, you know, again, it'd be one thing if it looked like q4 2022 was just a blip, then we could then a little bit of a different exercise. but i think we need to look closely at some of the ideas brought up by commissioner yi, by commissioner yanez, by the vice president, by the chief to determine the more pressing, urgent increase because it has been progress to see the overall volume of searches and stops and forced decline. it has been. and you know, we've seen the disparities hold. but you know now that seeing disparities jump is the opposite of progress. and so we want to see why. i think that's a something that this commission is very interested in appreciating that there's no way to get the perfect answer because we operate in the world of social science and not chemistry, where at the end of day is a formula. i had a political science professor that described the social scientists as the hard scientists because we're not able to get the answers. and i think that's

true. but i think that with this as a first piece of the conversation, i think we need to have a follow up conversation about that increase and some theories, even if they can't be academically tested, even if they're only going to be subsequently academically tested, i think a slide with some theories as to how we went from, um, a disparity of 15 and nine and 11 from black versus white disparity throughout 2022 to a disparity of 25. i know there was some discussion on when the reporting came out that maybe that was because of the reporting period. if that's part of the answer, then i think we need a slide that says that could be part of the answer. but i think that the first step to making any reductions is recognizing here are some theories we need to test the scientific method. you need your hypothesis. and what we saw here was a what, but i still think we need to figure out how to, you know, what? while not abandoning our work for the big why to figure out to look at this jump and treat it as as pressing. you know, we get the chief support every week on specific crimes.

if we saw a jump this significant in violent crime, there would be a lot of questions about about specifically what caused you know, an order of magnitude difference in violent crime and what are the specific steps that we think we can take. it would just be, well, crime goes up and down. so i think that as a first piece, this is a helpful sort of context setting. but i think we need to have more discussion on and with some specific proposals. again, some that were voiced tonight as the as the what we think might have caused that that significant jump that might look at the early 2023 data be be persisting. yeah. i mean i think that this is a good first conversation and certainly we can do some looking into this. we can certainly try to kind of run different cross tabs and descriptive statistics and

i'm fearful of what that turns up, meaning i'm not fearful of it showing the same information. i'm fearful of it showing the same information, meaning that it's not going to give us any answers that we all want. that's my worry. now, that doesn't mean we don't do it right so that would be my first thought. my second thought is really that it again an i'm this particular metric. so let me give you a baseline here. if we were to do the calculation for this disparity metric based on one use of force for an african american and one use of force for white person, that disparity is seven, seven times the seven times is the calculation that we're talking about is a seven versus a zero or a one. right because the population differential. so the i want i

have a strong desire to get to a better metric. that's a bit more evidence based. and there are a couple out there that i'd like to kind of talk to my colleagues in the chief about a little bit more in depth and then see and look at that kind of as a as a different see if that bears out this what we're seeing. there are multiple ways to look at this. i want to know if it shows up in multiple, multiple ways. i mean, i think that part of that discussion is providing other metrics that might be helpful. i think it's helpful to see that. is there an anticipated date for the next city report release? just we're still finalizing the mou, so sorry, i don't have an answer to that right now. okay. do you think it'll be in the year 2024? maybe at the end. okay. if in 2024? yeah okay. and

then i think, you know, we talked about the most recent city report and i know it's i think it would be helpful to members of the public if you could provide that to the commission staff so they could share it. so it's more easily, easily findable. yeah. well, we reshare it. thank you. that's all in the. i'm sorry to just just clarification in that cpr cp report on the website as well. it is, yeah, it is. so all of any studies that we've done, any of these type of reports that are on our website, they are all on our website in the published reports section, commissioner walker. thank you for this initial report. and i mean, it really is important to emphasize that the definition of use of force changed during this time, too. so it's kind of hard to compare apples to oranges and sort of make sense of it. but i did have a question about because it was brought up before, i mean, not necessary.

neighborhood demographer graphics of arrests, but assigned command efforts, for instance. there's been recent efforts to go after drug dealers is specifically which probably affects the these type of things so that information would be important to weigh in to this is also how we have body cameras on our officers when they engage in these use of forces. so even evaluating that might be very interesting to determine on what the interaction was. and i mean, that would sort of guide us around training, but it also would enlighten about why the use of force happened and certainly would be important as we engage in community discussions about this, because i think that it's right now

we're just looking at numbers and i believe this is kind of a nuance thing of and also determining i mean, when we look at racial bias versus versus racial disparity, we that's a huge issue because it is it involves other agencies that might be involved in these numbers as well. department of health, you know, department of homeless services, mental health services, all of that stuff sort of pertains to this. so i think that idea we the more information we can have specifically about the use of force incident, the more we can sort of see where where that comes from, because it doesn't necessarily just exist in the use of force action. it it's like, why are we here? kind of thing. so i mean, this is all

going to be really important and i, you know, i wish we had better technology and more advances along that line. and i think that there's certainly things that can be talked about around the availability of technology. but we have the opportunity, i think, with with the technology today to help us with this. so thank you very much. and we're very early, very early in some conversations. yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. director henderson. yeah. thank you. i just had a comment. i just wanted to respond. i know several times from tonight's conversation and i think you you were or had raised this issue about the staffing to try and address some of these concerns, to drill down more on the data stuff. but i just wanted to remind the commission that we already have several ongoing conversations about the expansion use of some of the data being collected and used from the police department and

two specific areas that i just want to make sure we're clear about. one is the information portion that is available available for our audit practices. that's an objective approach, interpreting some of that data. and so one of the ways, rather than waiting for with a preparatory approach to the department, having folks assigned to the work and collecting data is sharing more of the data externally to allow that to be processed. and then secondarily, we just had this conversation just a few weeks ago about the policy approaches, the policy approaches that are being drafted with regard to benchmark and collection with the department in terms of how they collect, analyze and make transfers, parent data that is coming from through and to the department and so i don't know if a commission, if a commissioner or the commission is watching that or wants to be

involved in that. but that will certainly have an end result in terms of what what information can be used that might be helpful beyond and what the department is able to do with whatever resources they already have and the biggest point for that, obviously, is we're not going to fix what we can't talk about and we can't talk about what we don't know. and i believe that these conversations begin and end with the data and so the decisions that we make around this data beyond just the stop data or arrest data or the yield rate or use of force, i think we're only going to get there if we have more of the raw data to look at, because it's a difficult conversation station to track when it's apples and oranges and we talk about use of force and we have the direct correlation often to race. there's no question that there are race disparities here. whether they reduced increase

stayed the same in terms of volume, race disparities exist from these numbers. the real issue is what specific steps are we going to take to address them? from my perspective, i believe once we have a drill down more, more correct and accurate correlation from the data, i think it will be easier for us to come up with the harder questions that can't be answered here today. but that's only going to take place if we have expanded access and use of the data to confirm exactly what's going on. so we know the areas to focus on and how to address them, that's it. director mcguire. just i just wanted to give you an opportunity to expand on one thing that you said earlier. very briefly when we were talking about what to take away from the ppe report, which again, ppe controlled for all of the non racial factors that it thought was relevant and the race disparities remained and

you said quickly as an aside, that another one way to interpret that is that race was itself race bias was itself driving the disparity. but you quickly mentioned as an aside that perhaps cp didn't account for other factors, didn't control for all the relevant factors. and that's true. that could be another explanation for it. so according to them, yes, right. so i just wanted to ask what what other factors do you think cp should have controlled for that? it didn't recidivate. i'm that is one one factor. the re-arrest of the same individuals is one factor. the that is just the beginning. right? why? that's interesting. why would recidivism be relevant ? it means that the same person with the same demographic is counted multiple times in the

data. now that doesn't necessarily decides to use use of force. they may or may not know whether a person has recidivated and the decision whether or not to use force has to be based on the facts and circumstances at the time. you know, the threat that the individual poses. right? so that's, i guess, at the margin, recidivism could play some role in that. if, you know, someone's a repeat offender, if we're talking about use of force exclusively, if we're talking about other other metrics, other data sets that they had access to that that then less varying levels of applicability in that way. but cp determined that recidivism was not worth controlling for in their estimation. the first go round. i don't think that they had access to data that would have given that them that, but they could have certainly gotten it. it's not hard to get its core. i'm sorry, we would have to look into it, but it's a challenging data set. the one that they had.

okay well, i guess what i would ask for this follow up study by cp, if there are any factors, any race neutral factors that this department thinks need to be controlled for to make sure to raise those to cp at the earliest possible time so that there report can account for it because what i really would love to avoid is for them to put together another beautiful report like this come to largely the same conclusion and then be having the same discussion in two years where we say, well, they controlled for everything. huge disparities remain, but we claim that there are perhaps other factors that that should have been looked at that weren't looked at. so if whatever the department thinks they need to look at, let's tell cp at the outset. and cp is obviously a very respected organization affiliated with a lot of prestige, academic institutions.

they have a lot of expertise in this. i'm sure that they'll be able to either accommodate our request or explain why a factor such as recidivism maybe isn't worth controlling for. yeah, if we measure it for it, we will make sure that they have it. meaning if we have the data for it to, we will make sure it happens. i will also add that i said recidivism right off the top, but the there may be factors that they don't know so that none of us know. right. that's part of the social science and the regression model. it's part of the fit of the model. it's part of the r score and everything, you know, all the statistic, all relevance, right? so the there there are unknowns in any of these types of statistic models. but they also were the ones that

said that they may not have controlled for everything. so they they do their best with their priors coming in and establishing what they feel are the right things and what they've seen in other data as being the right things to control for the other piece of this is i want to mention then quickly that. disparities and bias as commissioner walker stated, they are different and that race could play a factor as cpr or race was likely to play a factor. as cpd said, that that can mean any number of things. it can mean the officer, it could play a factor with the officer individually. it could play a factor in in the individual coming to be in the same location as the officer. right? so there are a number of ways in which race could play a

factor. and yes, cpd is has endeavored to control for all of those things. but when they say that race plays a factor for the department, it could mean the individual officer, it could mean the department as a whole. the policy, the directive that was received by the officer there is a lot a lot to parse out. in addition to race playing a factor. yeah. all right. well, thank you. to your first point, as donald rumsfeld once said, i take your point that there are some unknown unknowns, but this is a pretty this field of research has a very long pedigree. this is not some some new emerging field. the folks at cp and other academics have a lot of experience identifying the most relevant possible factors. and it sounds like we agree that the department will let cp know what factors it feels it should control for so that those can be appropriately taken into account. thank you so much for your presentation,

sergeant youngblood. can we please go to public comment? members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item nine, please approach the podium. good evening. i was listening and i'm very glad that this report was put together for although i do want to add to suggestive breakdown as well. and i do agree with commissioner walker about what situations is being developed that causes this. is that a mental illness? is it a personal dispute? could it be a robbery or a crowd control? and the second thing i'd like to see also added to this report is also breakdown between who are residents and who are not in terms of if the drug market has any effect on to the changing data or is it a individual who's come here and not understanding how laws here work depending on what it is? so i'd like to see also that if that would also be great to add. thank you. hi

there. alan barradell. i just heard a couple of comments early on from her. the director, she said that, you know, i'd like to know why do we require document tation and analysis when force is used? i know why we need the documentation analysis, but she said, should we require a lot more here in san francisco? i'd like to know why. another thing is officers can't use force on someone who is not a threat to themselves to someone else, but to themselves. and that's something i'd like to know more about. if i'm a threat to myself and i'm resisting. so i think that force should be used against me. i would expect that maybe not in the moment. and then just some other comments from the rest of the

presentation. there seems to be an eagerness to point to racial bias to explain these numbers and i would encourage you, you all to consider. to step away from trying to explain the racial disparity. maybe there's been too much focus on that. maybe we need to focus on compelling compliance, trying to educate kids as to comply, maybe about having more outreach from the police department to schools . i don't hear any talk about that. there was not one comment about that tonight. not not even one. it's all about the training of officers, the sequoyah program or whatever. i looked it up while i was sitting there. there's nothing about teaching

kids to comply with law enforcement. it's so simple. so thank you. i was listening about the use of force on african american or people of color and then we talked about the journey trip, all of that comes together. that's why we i mean, i went on that trip and we talk about the use of force, but about the use of force that was put on those people back when we watched when we went to go see the on the sojourner trip, when those police had those dogs and all those things coming out of those children. it still happening today. it's just different. so i do think that trip made a difference. it taught me more about my own history that i didn't know at

the age that i am now. i am 63 years old. i'm going to be 64. and what i saw on that trip really taught me to come back and use that in my healing circle. you know, to teach my children about their history. that needs to happen. do we need an analysis? we had people, police officers that came there that was in tears. i've never been so close, not close to them, but had a relation with them while i was there and never had a relationship with a police officer except for coming here to the police commission, but never had a relationship with a police officer. and for those people that are that downing that trip, i know they went there and they felt what i felt. i need my children to come there. the community where i'm a community member and i went our teacher that's teaching us we're going to have more children that may want to go on that trip. and

i know you felt it when you went there. and those of you that took the trip, that saw all of the things on the walls saying whites only dogs and all of the little babies, that's four years old being put in prison and their parents are scared. and so they have to use the children don't take that away from us. that is the end of public comment. line item ten public comment on all matters pertaining to item 12 below closed session, including public comment on item 11 a vote whether to hold item 12 in closed session. if you would like to make public comment regarding closed session, please approach the podium and there is no public comment. line item 11 vote on whether to hold item 12 in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10 action motion to hold item 12 and closed session second on

the motion, commissioner walker, how do you vote? yes, mr. walker is yes. commissioner benedicto yes. mr. benedicto is yes. commissioner janez. yes. mr. janez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes commissioner byrne is yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. and vice president carter oberstar. yes. vice president carter is. yes. you have six yeses. we are going into closed session. 19 vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 12 held in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.12. a action motion to not disclose items 12 second. right. all right. for members of the public who would like to make public comment regarding line item 13, please approach the podium. seeing none, commissioner walker on the motion, how do you vote? yes, commissioner walker is yes. commissioner benedicto. yes. commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. yes commissioner janez is yes. commissioner byrne. yes. commissioner byrne is. yes. commissioner yee yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone yes. vice president overstone is yes.

you have six yeses. line item 14 adjournment.