roll, please. commissioner clay. present. commissioner. walker. present. commissioner benedicto. present. commissioner. yanez. present. commissioner. yee here. vice president carter is excused. president lyons, do you have a quorum? also with us tonight, we have chief scott

from the san francisco police department and acting executive director diana rosenstein from the department of police accountability. thank you. welcome, everyone, to our september 11th meeting. okay. how are you? i'm good. anything else? should we just. oh, that wasn't me. okay, now that everyone's here, ready to go, let's get this show on the road. line item one weekly officer recognition certificate. presentation of an officer who has gone above and beyond in the performance of their duties. presentation of the officers who responded to the union square shooting. all of them. it's going to be the group. it's going to be the whole group. right do you want me to wait? you want me to do public comment first? is she five minutes? five minutes? five minutes? let me let me pass this one to public comment first. and then we're going to come back to it. okay. thank you. all right. line item two general public comment at this time. the public is now welcome to address the

commission for up to two minutes on items that do not appear on tonight's agenda, but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the police commission under police commission. rules of order. during public comment, neither police or dpr personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions by the public, but may provide a brief response. alternatively, you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. email the secretary of the police commission at sapd. commission at sfgov. org or written comments may be sent via us postal service to the san francisco police safety building, located at 1245 third street, san francisco, california. 94158. if you'd like to make public comment, please approach the podium. good evening. i'm miss brown. i'm here again on a wednesday, bringing awareness to unsolved homicides. i'd like to use the overhead, this is my son, who was murdered august 14th, 2006,

to this day, his case isn't solved. i was just at the police. i mean, the board of supervisors talking about these labels that are on here and the says, don't remove. but i'm getting them removed every time i put them up. and i don't know if it's discrimination or what it is. the neighborhood i live in, but i've been living there longer than anyone in here. but i got to climb up on a pole and put this back up again. and if i catch them, i'm at the house. at their house with a with the police. there's no statute of limitations for murder to this day. his case is unsolved. i don't just come here about my son, but before i do that, i say that there's $0 that have been paid out for unsolved homicides in nearly a decade, including my son. i have these pictures of.

finally, my son is on one of these posters, but we still have no place to put them. there's other unsolved homicides that i stand with these mothers and these fathers, these mothers and these fathers. you haven't. gavin newsom saying, i know who killed her son. the da know who killed her son. the police know who killed her son. but, quote, no one wants to come forth. but when will someone come forth? all they left me with was a lifeless body. here's my son. and here he is again. please thank you. any member of the public that has any information regarding the murder of aubrey casa. you can call the anonymous 24 over seven tip line at (415) 575-4444. i have a handou.

good evening. police commission dpa and police chief bill scott. for the record, my name is chris klein. and thank you for letting me speak tonight. i wanted to personally thank the first responders, department of emergency management, san francisco police department, the fire department, and various commissions to include the police commission to make a priority. that issues that included 5g interference, noise pollution and some vulnerabilities that contributed to increases in public health and public safety. the departments mentioned and others not named, are currently partnering with state and federal partners to mitigate any further interference and should allow key stakeholders to move forward with appropriate decisions and actions as deemed necessary. separately, fleet week is coming up and i'm looking forward to all the events here in the city as we salute and honor contributions from men and women in the united

states. armed forces and of course, the contributions of the local first responders in san francisco, citizens and visitors from various states. my public comments over the last several months were necessary, and i appreciate the professionalism of everyone here at this commission, and others present. i now look forward to service collaborating with the city, focusing on my nonprofit haven, which stands for prejudice and violence ends now and working with san francisco and moving forward and not backwards. thank you. oh man. over there. no, i'm going to stand for this. how y'all doing? my name is malenka moyer. some of you might know me as being a drug addict. mentally ill. it's not true. i was set up. i did nine years legally in jail behind sfpd anthony garret.

and richmond station officers ripping off a bank, using my house for banking, realty fraud. i have a federal order for the u.s. attorney to file federal charges. you hear me? on march the 4th, vincent delaney rammed the car into me trying to kill me. the police officer said i ran a stop sign. this shit's over with. i got a subpoena from federal officers. the federal court. all right, chief scott bethel a.m.e. church made you look like a fool when you came to that church. they were involved in banking, realty fraud, and they invited you to church. make you look stupid. all right. i am lucky to be alive. i have respect for the law. people are in my house illegally. judge haines said he would take care of this. and the captain, robert guzman, said i had every right to file a criminal complaint. all right. thank you guys.

it's going to be a bit tough. does anybody remember that? it's september 11th. it's something. there was a big crime happening. we shouldn't forget. i think it's absolutely key here. i don't i'm not here to give you a good, news. i will say it's going to be difficult, but i have no choice. i need to do it during this summer. this recess here. i'm following what i received from the skies. i know it sounds insane. all the time, but it's what happens. so i need to do it. i started to do it yesterday at the board of supervisors. basically my orders are to tell you that you are under arrest. the entire

humanity mostly almost is under arrest. the charge is easy. i mean, the charge is violation of the eternal rules of existence, which are entirely set on focusing what human beings do towards the emotional aspiration, towards beauty. that's it. the violation has been going on for too long now. so everybody almost is under arrest. so if you committed a crime or been part of somebody committing a, you know, a system that involves the death of somebody, if you messed with the elements, skies, you know, basic element fire, water, you can't bail yourself out. the rest of your existence will be unhappy, ugly, and you won't ever be back in any form or shape. and your descendants will pay for you. on top of that. now, if you didn't

enter this category, you still can bail yourself out, but you need to listen to me. i've been giving a list of things to start applying for the city of san francisco. we think locally only. first, thank you. that is the end of public comment. all right, back to line. item one weekly officer recognition certificate presentation of the officers who responded to the union square shooting. all right. okay. good evening, president elias and the members of the police commission. my name is captain eric kim. i'm the commanding officer of central station, which incorporates union square, which

this incident occurred. i would first off like to thank everyone on this panel for recognizing the officers who are involved in this robbery and shooting of a 49 year player, richard purcell, on saturday, august 31st at 3:30 p.m. i am not here today to talk about one individual officer and their actions on this day, but the bravery, leadership, coordination and teamwork it took to handle the serious incident on that day. on that day when the suspect attempted to rob mr. purcell piersol with a gun and gunfire erupted, officers nearby ran toward the gunfire as these officers arrived on scene. they must, at an instant notice, an instant evaluate the scene, prioritize what must be done, and act. in this case, coming from one end

of the street to mr. pearsall, officers arrived and saw a person who was shot and on the sidewalk. immediately, officers rendered aid, providing first aid as other officers arrived with medical care, with chest seal to cover up the wounds on both end of mr. pearsall. at the same time, other officers responding to the gunfire arrived and saw the other side of the block. another gunshot victim, not knowing what's going on. they treated that person as if they were a victim and began rendering first aid, not knowing that it was a suspect involved in this crime as they were, citizens came up and advised the officers that they that the suspect dropped the gun a few feet away, which had officers respond to that scene and basically ensured that the evidence was secured. at the same time, with this chaotic situation going on, officers broadcast the description, which again confirmed the identity of

the person, rendering aid as the suspect. i should say sorry, as they did that basically trying to calm the situation down, officers began to realize again that that was a suspect and took him into custody. so as i talk about this incident overall, there was more to it than just than that. just initial officer, when i talk about the actions of teamwork with our department, there's a lot more to it. it just doesn't end there. when you have the suspect in custody after such an incident, there's incidents like, again, rendering aid and ensuring there's no other victims. officers had to conduct code shows ensuring that they had the right victims, again, making sure there's no other victims on the scene, they had to secure the crime scene, look for evidence and secure them, identify witnesses and do interviews, again, finding evidence, video cameras, seeing footage about the case. and

basically, again, getting officers on scene who are investigators to again collect the evidence, ensure they have a proper case for the da's office. again, when we talk about incidents like this, it's just not 1 or 2 officers. but as you see, the extensive nature of this case, it takes a large amount of officers. as you can see behind me, this is just a fraction of the officers that are here. okay and again, to emphasize like any professional organization, it's really not about an individual, but again, about teamwork, about all the officers involved. to have a successful department like we do here. and i'd like to recognize again, the teamwork that we displayed here in this incident and not just this incident, but on a daily basis. what these officers do in and day out. so again, not talking about just the initial officers, but the investigators who came out to the scene and also the officers

who came and processed the scene to build the case, to give to the da's office so they can prosecute. so, so for myself, i'd like to thank you all again for recognizing these officers. and if you give me a moment, i'd like to actually call out the names who were involved. and i'd like to also show you that it was just not the central officers that were involved, but other officers who were working at union square. so if i can take a minute to read out the names. first off, i'd like to talk about, to show, display acting captain brendan o'connor, who at that time was the weekend captain for the event. so he oversaw the entire event to make sure that the officers at the scene had whatever they needed from the chief's office. sergeant joel harrell, who's present, was involved from our traffic company. officer mike ellis from our special special victims unit, sergeant nicholas

barrera, who's also they were all at the scene from our central officers who are represented here, lieutenant dean hall, who is also the direct supervisor at this incident. sergeant aaron foltz. officer ryan davidson, officer andrew kidd, officer gary kunibert. officer juan lora, officer brian norberg, officer anthony randolph, officer ashley slomowicz. officer brandon smith, officer jonathan sylvester, officer talon tang, officer daniel de leon, from tenderloin station officer robert brown. so the name i just read off were the officers at the scene who basically was there from the start to the very end. and as you can see, it was just not from the central station, but officers throughout the department. so you can show the type of teamwork that had to take place to resolve this

incident. and knowing that they don't normally work together, they come in an instant moment like this and we're able to pull this off, i'd like to especially recognize also the strategic unit. excuse me. strategic investigative unit, who investigated this case, sergeant adrian payne. sergeant kevin burns. sergeant rodrigo labson. sergeant ryan hart. so they were the ones that put the case together to present to the da's. and for the crime scene investigators who came out to collect the evidence and preserve it was officer rosalind cheek. i'm sorry. cheek and officer christopher simpson. so at this time, again, i just want to say that for myself, being the commanding officer for such an incident, i'm very proud to be a member of the san francisco police department because, as you can see, it just doesn't. it takes an entire more than just 1 or 2 officers. it takes teamwork

to basically be able to handle a situation like this from start to end. so thank you again, and i'd like to say that i am very proud to be the commanding officer of all these officers that's present in front of you. thank you. chief. thank you, president elias. and thank you, sergeant kim. i also want to acknowledge our assistant chief, david lazar, who's here, chief of operations to support the officers. this event was horrific. just like any, you know, event of this magnitude. somebody attempted robbery, and that ends in a person being shot. but i just want to highlight what captain kim said. and i'll kind of reiterate some of this. best case scenario, with all the officers that this would have been prevented, but it wasn't. and it happened. but the response time, the swiftness to which these officers

responded within a minute, the coordination, i mean, this doesn't happen by accident. they relied on their training. they relied on their commitment to doing what it is that they've been asked to do by the public, by this department. and really, the response was outstanding. there were a lot of moving parts. and, you know, we can go down the line and name what everybody did from collecting evidence to saving lives to treating wounds to riding with the victim in the ambulance and keeping them calm, and all thos, those things, that's training. but training only goes as far as our members willing to exercise that training and do it in the way that we've been asking them to do it, which they did in this case, the compassion that was shown to the victims and the suspect because he was arrested, he had to be treated as well. and there was a split second where they didn't know who was who in this in this incident. but across the board, it was just outstanding work, outstanding coordination. so i just want to again, thank you

all, i know some of the members aren't here, but i also want to thank president elias and the commission for recognizing the entire team because it is a team game, a team thing, and we appreciate you recognizing the entire team commissioner and commission. thank you. thank you. chief i also want to extend a huge thank you. we often times most of our job is seeing officers who don't follow training or who, you know, come to us before us for discipline. so it's really great to see you as a team here and that we are able to celebrate your actions and following what it is that we see every day, which are the dgos and the training that the department invests in you and really takes the time to make sure that you have the adequate training and proper instruction to do your job, i also want to acknowledge we usually have one individual that comes every week, but this is great to have

all of you because as we see, not only was it a chaotic scene, but it really does take a team. it's a huge team effort. and it's not just one person that does this. i think it also speaks volumes that not only were you very responsive in terms of your response time, i mean, quick in your response time. but union square, that area is very crowded and there's a lot of everyday people that are there. and the fact that not only did you, handle the situation that happened, but also secured the scene to ensure that no other individuals were injured and to make that area safe for other individuals that were in that area. so i think that speaks volumes, and i'm really happy that you all are here, and i'm sure there are more people that probably couldn't come today or that aren't on the list. that probably should be. so i want to extend a huge thank you to everyone. commissioner benedicto. thank you, president elias. thank you, captain kim, for that introduction. and i

really want to extend, gratitude to all of the involved officers in this incident, those that were there and those that were not. i also want to echo something the chief said, i really want to thank president elias, who brought back this tradition of the commission recognizing officers at our weekly meetings. i think it's a good way to highlight when we see good work being done by officers, but also a good way to be able to recognize, you know, big events that happen instead of just sort of with medal of valor or sort of the more formal ceremonies that we have. so thank you so much for bringing this back, it was a terrible incident, but the response to it was anything but. it was both very rapid and incredibly rapid. you know, we often hear, oh, it took a minute, i think, for members of the public watching, that's not an exaggeration. it took one minute for the first officer, i believe, was sergeant harrell to be, on the scene and the whole and two minutes basically for the whole thing to be that that initial response. so it was both incredibly quick

and then incredibly comprehensive in terms of how the evidence collection, the follow up work, all of the things that had to happen in the wake of that. and i think that that can often get lost. it was both very quick and incredibly comprehensive, the heroism and responsiveness that we've seen from these officers is exactly what we want from all of our officers. and the teamwork and the collaboration, i feel so very privileged to know a number of the officers in these response that who are being recognized today. and really, it's great to see them being recognized for this work. i think it's also important for members of the public to know that in addition to this incredible work, a lot of these officers have a whole number of other responsibilities that they tend to. and also do with incredible grace and professionalism and with the same level of comprehensiveness. i'm going to call out, sergeant joel harrell, who i've had the privilege of working with on policy working groups for the department. and i can tell you that even then was impressed with their ability in in those

policy working group meetings to be an active participant to be contributing to make sure that the meetings were working and running on time and to have to do basically an entire desk job of working on policy and then also have to be on patrol, as i know all of you do your reports and do your paperwork and are also on patrol, it's an incredibly challenging thing that is asked of you and everyone here and members across the department do it with professionalism and grace. and thank you very much. commissioner yee. thank you very much, sarah. president elias, first of all, i would like to thank captain kim and central station for your leadership in in your members and making sure that we are safe out there. and also to sergeant harnell for, i guess, saving lives. actually, all this training from the from the department has done its job and saved here, i mean, save people's lives here. so again, thank you for all your hard

work. thank you. also, assistant chief lazar making sure that we work as a team and keeping us safe, i guess, all the hard work is just paid off, so. thank you again. and thank you, chief scott. thank you, commissioner walker. thank you. thank you so much. this just underlines the importance of the work you do. and we really appreciate all of your efforts, and also, i just want to applaud the training division because, you know, it really is especially, impressive that you all from different districts and different jobs came together and each were trained sufficiently to come together and really make a difference here. so i think it just really underlines the what you brought up, chief about, you know, it takes every one of us, every one of you on a daily

basis to do the job, and we really appreciate it. so it is really nice to have you all here and celebrate. so thank you. thank you. usually we give an opportunity for anyone who wants to speak, to speak, which i'm sure you all are chomping at the bit to do what you can, but i think it's just so interesting to me when we're in these policy working groups. and we were sitting here making policy and to see it being played out in such, an amazing and i think intricate manner is just like, it's, it's a really it's a great feeling to see it. so again, congratulations. thank you so much, casey lazar. thank you for your leadership on this. and captain kim. chief, did you want to take a second to go down there? yes. thank you. and also thank you. there's family members here. oh, yes. fellow officers who are also family members. and i want to thank them for being here as well and partners of some of the officers. thank you, sergeant,

for any member of the public that would like to make public comment. if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item one, please approach the podium. yes podium. oh, okay. where are you going to take that. right here. okay. oh. there you go. squeeze it in. come on. turn in towards each other. that would be great. that's a great one. that's fantastic. thank you very much. thank you. thank you. for your. i wanted to thank them too, because today is nine over 11.

so this is an example of team, mates and police officers coming together and fire persons coming together to save people. so i want to commend you and congratulate you all to and remember 911 today, and you guys are an example of that. so just wanted to say that thank you. thank you. okay you're welcome. yes. we said 911 already before this. it's not good to remember, but we must because. okay. yes. good. i guess it's good job. but dit dit dit dit dit dit dit. they are not happy, so stop. they are not happy. you guys are not happy because you have to do a shitty job. and you would like to do it otherwise. another way and you can't. you are told not

to do it, so you have to take care of crap. it's not why you signed to be a police officer. you wanted to be like a sort of hero, you see. and you can't do it because you are crushed by money. as everybody. so let's make it clear. that is the end of public comment line item three consent. calendar. receive and file action donation to the sfpd mounted patrol unit from the margaret sensation trust in the amount of $23,405.32 and sfpd and dpa's 1421 and sb 16 monthly report. can i get a motion? motion to receive and file. second. any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item three. please approach the podium. there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner clay, how do you vote? yes, commissioner clay is. yes, commissioner walker. yes commissioner walker is. yes. commissioner. benedicto. yes, commissioner benedicto is. yes.

commissioner yanez. yes. commissioner yanez is. yes commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have six yeses. line item four. chief seaport discussion. weekly crime trends and public safety concerns provide an overview of offenses, incidents or events occurring in san francisco. having an impact on public safety commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for future meeting. chief scott, thank you, sergeant youngblood, good evening again, president elias commission, miss rosenstein and the public, before we get into the crime trends, i want to start, my report just briefly to update the public in the commission on an incident that occurred at, alcatraz landing at pier 33 over the weekend. this involved a vending task force that it resulted in an arrest of one of the vendors. and it has, raised a lot of public interest. but i

want to just put the facts out to the public based on the review of the reports, the video, all the videos that are out there, including body worn camera, because i believe at this point, the videos that have been put out in public only show a very, very small sliver of the incident. and i just want to make sure that the public is aware of the facts, the body worn cameras, we will likely release them. there is a lot of, footage to go through. there are people involved, including kids. so of course we have to redact. if we do release, make sure we have permission of some of the witnesses. but they will likely be released pending. pending. right now, they don't jeopardize anything to release them. but i would like the public to see. so we're transparent on that. but at any rate, basically the incident was on this past sunday, pier 33, as i said, alcatraz landing. it involved the a vending enforcement task force, which is a multi

department, collaborative that consists of the port of san francisco employees, san francisco fire department, members of the department of public works, the department of public health, and the san francisco police department. our role as far as the police department and vending enforcement, we are prohibited by law from enforcing unbending any type of vending, so we do not make arrests, nor do we cite for vending. but we have been asked to be a part of this task force because other city departments have had some real serious issues with their employees being threatened or attacked. and this these have been reported, spat on, you name it, for just doing this work and doing their jobs, particularly with some of the vendors. i also want to start by saying some people are out there trying to make a living, and we understand that, and we're very empathetic to that. however, we do get a lot of demand citywide to as a

city to do something about the rampant vending that's happening. that includes food, that includes merchandise that includes groceries, you name it. and people are out there on our streets selling it. so it actually takes up a lot of the city's resources to try to address some of these issues. and it's across the city. this particular task force is focused at the pier, and it's led really by the pier of the port of san francisco, so at any rate, on sunday at about 939, 25 or so in the morning, members of this task force went out there at pier 33, at alcatraz landing. and they gave warnings to the food vendors that were out there. most of them with the food carts cooking, unpermitted. food, food items. most of the vendors, after being warned, left. they got their belongings, their carts, and they left the team went to another location that has been problematic for vending and did some of the same

type of warning. and then they came back to pier 33. when they got back, several vendors had either come back or were still there, and most of these vendors wasn't a lot of them, but it was at least three were vendors with hot dog carts. those one of the carts was inspected by public health and basically it was tagged for, impound because it did not meet the health rules, it was unpermitted and did not meet the public health rules. so public health tagged the car for impound. there was another city worker out, wasn't a police department that then commenced to impound the cart at that point the vendor the woman who was seen on the videos that had been posted publicly, did not want to give up the cart and there a struggle ensued between the city worker and the woman over the cart, i will say this. it was not an assaultive

struggle. it was just a struggle of control of the cart because she did not want to give up her cart, that person and another person that was a city employee, not a police department employe, began to try to take control of the cart so it can be impounded. at that point, our officers were there. they attempted to intervene. they attempted to de-escalate. one officer is actually heard telling his partner that he did not want to handcuff the woman because a little child who we believed at that time to be her daughter, was crying very loudly and screaming because her mother was involved in this incident. and my heart goes out to this little, this little child for having to witness this. but more to follow on that, before i wrap this up, the officers were able to de-escalate it at that point, they remained calm. and all this is in the body worn camera

video, tried to calm the lady down. the vendor down, and they actually got her separated from the cart. so she's standing off to the side a couple of feet away and they are about to impound the cart. she's unhandcuffed at this point. she is unrestrained at this point, but she kind of walks away from the officers and grabs the cart again. so there's another struggle over the cart. the cart topples over during the struggle. during that struggle, one of the port employees received a cut on his hand, a couple of injuries on his hand, and the woman actually pushed the other employee to try to get him off of the cart. that's when the officers decided to place her in handcuffs. at that point, when they tried to place her in handcuffs, she tried to pull away from the officer. so it was resistance. it was an assault of resistance, but it was an act of resistance. and the officers ended up, ended up as she tried to pull away, taking her down to the ground. there was a minimal

amount of force. they did not get on top of her. they held her down. they handcuffed her. they stood her up immediately and continued to try to get her, to get her calmed down. and then they put her in a police car. the vendor was actually arrested for the battery on the two employees. she was not arrested for vending. and i think that's part of the misinformation that's out there. she was arrested for the battery, they actually even though it most of it occurred in the officer's presence, they actually signed a citizen's arrest or private person's arrest. the two that had been battered and then witnesses were interviewed. so that basically is what occurred, i watch all the body worn cameras. i've seen the videos that are out there. the body worn cameras. what i want to point out is a couple of things, about the officers and what i saw on the cameras. they remained very calm throughout this whole incident. they tried repeatedly to de-escalate. as i said, one officer says, and you

can hear it on camera, that he did not want to handcuff her because of the situation with the child, but they ended up having to handcuff the lady to get control of the situation, they never raised their voice. they were very respectful. there was no profanity at any point in this incident, that was heard and basically that's how it happened. now, afterwards, a couple of witnesses came forward, and one who who gave her information to the officers and basically she told the officers that she heard a woman who has not been identified at this point, basically egging the little child on to scream and cry because and this is what the witness said, if you do that, they'll release your mother like they like they've done in the past. so the officers took that statement. they put it in the report, it's on the body worn camera. and again, i feel awful for that little girl having to be in that situation, and it's

very unfortunate that she was put in that situation by adults. but that is the facts of what happened as far as the vendor, she was cited and she was released from the scene and there was some complaint of injuries. so use of force report was taken and that will be evaluated by the supervisor. but i just wanted to put the facts out there because there's been a lot of a lot of, a lot of information and some misinformation on social media based on a very small snippet of the video that was put out to the media outlets. and that small snippet does not tell the story of what i just have shared with the commission and the public, the last thing i will say is our department is put in a very difficult position because we cannot enforce we've been asked to protect city workers because of the numerous attacks that have happened in these, in this type, these type of operations. and our officers

really, try to, as best they can, resolve these situations when they get involved without resorting to force. we've had our officers vehicles vandalized, cars, tires slashed, windows shattered, some people are very violent when the these these laws are enforced. so that's why we are attached to these these task forces and the one thing that i will say to the public and the commission, if our officers are wrong, we need to be accountable. we do. if we do wrong, we need to be accountable. there is nothing that i saw in this video that officers or anybody else involved did anything other than what they were, what they were asked to do in the way that they were asked to do it. i saw nothing that indicated misconduct, and i want to make sure that the employees who particularly our police officers

who are asked to do this work, know that we support their work when they do the work, the way we ask them to do it with dignity and respect. and that is what i saw in this video. so i know this is a very tough situation. i know there's a lot of people with a lot of feelings and emotions about this whole issue just to begin with, because this this is not a new issue, and there's a lot of emotion with this, but we've been asked to be a part of these. there's a lot of demands by the public to curb the vending that is happening across the city. and that is our role. so i just thank you for allowing me to explain in detail what happened and if there's anything else that the commission wishes to agendize, i'd be happy to do that. and again, we are likely to release the videos if we can get the permissions that we need to release the videos. so that was my question is why can't wh? what is the eta on getting these

videos released and why hasn't it been released? because it's the and from the tidbits we've seen, you've seen how it is. and i know you're here telling us the facts, but at the end of the day, you know, what you see is a woman, a child, a woman of color, and so when can we get these videos so that the public can see the full video? because although you're here to tell us what you've seen, i think the public needs to see it for themselves. yes. so a couple of things need to happen, just like we do on any videos we release. we go through, we redact what is required by law to redact, there's over an hour worth of footage in these videos, so, if there's obvious juveniles or people that we think are under under age, that has to be redacted, we try to check with witnesses to make sure that they're okay with their images being released.

sometimes they're not. sometimes they don't want their voices out there. so we have to digitize. so it takes a couple of days to do that. this just happened sunday. and just even on our officer involved shootings, it takes us usually up to the day that we release. we're working on these videos, trying to make sure we redact. so i believe we could have all this done within the week this week, by friday. you think within within the week, within a week from today, the day of the incident, sunday. okay. well, within a week from today, because we've been reviewing videos and all, and again, i don't see any at this point any jeopardy to any investigation at this point. so that is that's the direction we plan to go with this. okay. i have two commissioners on the dais. i'm going to let them ask you questions regarding this incident, and then we can resume your report. thank you. yes. thank you, president elias. thank you, chief, for a very detailed overview of the incident, i did see one video and read an article on it. there

appeared to be some language access needs. are we sure that the individual actually understood what was being conveyed to her? there was a point in the video where we did get, you know, a spanish speaker out there, and that could have been, part of it. and one of the officers were using hand gestures and very simple language, basically saying like, please, you know, stop, stop. as she was trying to struggle to take the cart away, she the vendor obviously spoke spanish, and the only english words that i heard was, no, no, no. so yeah, that could have been an issue. i mean, this thing unfolded pretty quickly, but they did get a spanish speaker out there, certified spanish speaker later. but not during the part where there was a struggle over the cart. i'm glad that the service was accessed at

some point, because i know that there must have been some follow up and, the interview that must have taken place. i hope, did have that support offered to her. the other question i had for you was with regard to the child, that to me is what really kind of struck me and hurt some right? because as you know, i've worked with children my whole life. and do you think the department, officers on the scene addressed that individual child's needs? i mean, i know that you mentioned that there may have been someone egging her on. we that wasn't apparent from the video that i saw. i saw a person trying to embrace the child, as any other human, i think would have done, do you think that the officers there, adhered to protocol when it comes to ensuring that the safety of the a child in this case was being protected? i do from based on what i've seen and

based on what i heard the officer saying. again, you know, one of the officers, because of that, did pretty much everything they could or he could to not handcuff the mother who he believed it was a mother. and i believe that was confirmed. so i do i know after the fact they also, you know, the department of. family and child services was called. so that was done as well, just to make sure that they opened a case on this. and, i don't know what will come up from that, but they did go through that effort to make sure the child was taken care of. well, that's that's reassuring, at least, you know, to know that there is a department that has expertise, right, with working with young people who have been traumatized, which i'm sure that individual clearly was, and i guess the last question i have for you is with regards to coordination, i know that there is you know, right now we just had a great example of

interdepartmental coordination, were whatever protocols or mous are in place, which i actually would love for us to agendize and understand a little bit better what that coordination and what the responsibilities of each department is during these incidents. do you think that that was followed as clearly as it could have been? yes i do, there's no mou for this collaboration because we do this work all over the city, we're doing a lot of work in the mission, same type of work. we're doing a lot of work in the tenderloin and soma and other parts of the city. as well. so the basically public health with food vending is responsible for doing their health inspections. if there's an impound of the car, that's where public works comes in. they impound and hold the carts. fire is inspecting, particularly these carts that have propane and gas, you know, propane. patel heating sources there have been some explosions

that luckily nobody was killed with that. so fire. that's what they do to make sure that there's none of that happening, we stand by to make sure that nobody is being threatened or attacked or any other criminal activity other than vending. that's when we step in. and then at the port, because this particular operation was focused on the port where there's a lot of vending, they have a person assigned to basically vending operations to help coordinate all this work. so those are the departments that are involved. and everybody has their responsibility, as i just described. and it's a pretty well established there are discussions and briefings and things like that. so everybody knows what everybody's role is. so there's no mou. but there is an ongoing working relationship between these departments on on this issue. well, thank you for the report and i'm looking forward to seeing different angles that that kind of

reassure us that policy was adhered to. and that at the end of the day, the officers responded in the appropriate fashion. the way that you've explained it, thank you. thank you, commissioner clay. yes, thank you, madam president. chief, my question is about the rolling out of the videos because obviously it's been very important. people have looked at the young child who's crying. the reaction there. and you've given us a whole lot of information here tonight as it relates to that. and the question becomes, is it is a child? how will you address showing that video, how that interaction occurs? and you indicate there's another person talking to the child to increase or scream out because it will release their parent and so when you say you're going to roll it out and you're going to review, you said at least an hour, is there, is there a protocol on how you will do that? because there's a lot of information in the public obviously is going to is missing because they've only seen the internet. and what kind

of videos have been released. correct. so juveniles, we are prohibited from by policy and law from releasing juveniles. so the videos that, in the past, we have to redact or digitize and make sure children's faces and images aren't being put out in the public. also, if there's any class information, that type of thing that has to be redacted also, we do make every effort to contact people to let them know. like if there's a 911 caller or witnesses to make sure that they are okay with their images being released. and some people are, some people aren't, there have been people that didn't want their voices to be released without digitizing. so we do that. that takes a little bit of time. anyway but provided that there are no legal restrictions, we will release. so in the, in this case where the child at the

worst case scenario, you'll digitize. so her face won't be known, but you will have the interaction. so people will see what was happening at the course of these things going on, which represents more a fuller picture of what you've what's been released on the internet that everyone is looking at. that is correct. yes, sir. and just let me just for clarity, the warnings and everything that i talked about that happened an hour prior, there's no body worn camera on that because those weren't police officers doing those warnings, but it's listed in the report, the video start basically when the officer walked up. they're struggling over the cart with the with the vendor. and then from there up until she's handcuffed and arrested and then after everything after. so witnesses being located and that type of thing. so there's an interaction with the group who are there to enforce the carts. and when the officers walk up, they will see all of that transparent. they'll see from the point where the

city worker is trying to confiscate the cart or impound the cart. that's when the struggle started. so the video, when the video comes on, what you'll see is they're all kind of tussling over the cart. thank you. commissioner yee, thank you very much. there. present elias, i just have a question, regards to the prior to the incident happening, was there like a, i guess, a report from the department of public health, what? they're going to do on this task force to, sfpd. so this work has been ongoing for several months, and it is pretty consistent. we have, these these vendor enforcement task forces, some sometimes it's dependent on special events. so usually when there are special events, there's a lot of, unpermitted and illegal vending, and then

the types of vending, there's food, there's merchandise. sometimes there's, you know, fencing going on, but usually they're at the port of san francisco. it's mainly food and merchandise. so, yeah, they, the port coordinates with the rest of the departments. and then these things are scheduled on a regular basis. and then my follow up question is, is, is anybody maybe trying to work with the, i guess, the bunch of sellers out there to making sure see if they get licensed and following the regulations, sometime like, i guess, commissioner beyonce language issues where we can go out and outreach to them so, you know, present, you know, making sure that they filed a guidelines, the public health. so we don't cut down these incidents. yeah. on a on a larger scale, the city has made efforts to work with vendors and there's some, i'll

say, innovative things that have been done in the mission to try to work with some of the vendors met with some success, but there are still some challenges, the food is my understanding, even though that's not the police department's lane, it's quite difficult. refrigeration is an issue. storage, food storage and there's a lot of regulations that they have to follow, to, to get permit. and they are able to get permits in some instances, is my understanding. so yes, there have been efforts. there's a lot of work to be done on it. it's a very complicated issue. and so it's you know, i think, i know the city is willing to work with vendors and that's been done. and we are willing to work and get input as well, because it is an issue that places a lot of demands on our resources. the police department and city overall. thank you very much, chief. thank you. commissioner benedicto. thank you, president elias. thank you, chief, for that update. and i think it will be helpful, to members of the

public when all those videos will be released. will the videos be released? will they be accompanied by any, like, any format in which to contextualize the videos? i know, obviously, for oasys, sfpd does the town halls. is there any sort of way those will be presented, or will they just sort of appear on on a portal? what we have found to be helpful in the past, and ois is particularly or officer-involved shootings for the public. there are on occasions where we will put caption with what's being said, and that's very helpful, and there also, with, with the officer involved shootings, we basically give a chronology of what happened and that's helpful to some some people don't care for it, but some people that's very helpful. so we'll between what we've done in the past and if we use the ois model, you know, a lot of work goes into that with the play by play blow

by blow of what's happening, other times we release videos and we just put it on the website and we've shown various angles at the same time so people can see. so we'll we have a really good team of people with this approach. so we try to get west the best and most transparent viewpoint for the public to see. and the easiest because it can be complicated at times when there's multiple videos and even we've done at times trying to time cell phone videos that are taken by, you know, residents or people. and we try to time that with the body worn camera. so you can see it from multiple perspectives. that's a little bit trickier, but it can be done if the video hasn't been edited and all that. so we have to, you know, look out for those things. that makes sense. i mean, i think just speaking for myself, i think that the sfpd's, the officer involved shooting presentations have really become very comprehensive. like you said in the way they're able to break it down. and maybe this is a need that that exact level. but i

think it probably merits something more than just releasing to the website, because i think that context, whether like, i know for officer-involved shooting presentations, sometimes you'll be able to zoom in on certain portions or or like you said, you kind of interpose different, different sources. so i think something in between those two extremes, i think, would be helpful, because i often think that sometimes just releasing a 60 minute video on the website isn't always the most helpful either. and you have the same, the same phenomenon we're having now where you have small snippets making their way online and getting characterized kind of by misinformation. yes, you're absolutely right. so we do take that into consideration. so thanks for that feedback. is there any discussion? i know the last time commissioner walker and i were on a ride along in the tenderloin, we witnessed some of the vendor operations. and like you said, they're led by other departments, supported by sfpd. and even i think the one we saw, which was pretty uneventful, was it was still a stressful. and it was distressing to i feel like i feel like the individual was was was in some distress can obviously be a distressing experience for an individual to experience. is there any discussion like falls a little

bit of what commissioner yee said, you know, with the different partners on ways to whether it's de-escalate or ways to just prevent this from being quite so easily turned into a traumatic experience for the for the person being cited. yeah, we certainly we certainly do try. and every operation that i, that i've seen in person and been briefed on there are warnings, multiple warnings usually given, and in this case there were warnings given. yeah. however what also happens is the team will go and give warnings and i'm just talking generically now. people will leave, they'll pack up their belongings and leave, whether it's food, merchandise or whatever. they're out there vending. and as soon as that team goes away, it just repopulates. so we saw that there comes a point where, you know, enforcement has has to happen because or else, you know, we're just kind of spinning our wheels. so, but

multiple warnings and when it comes to, you know, the merchandise vending, there are warnings given, there are actually paper warnings given as well. and then, sometimes that leads to administrative citations because again, we can't it's no longer criminal. yeah. but they are there are administrative citations that are given. but even with that people are assaulted quite ofte. i don't know if you'll know the answer to this, since obviously this would be something that the partner agencies would know. do you know what kind of training the street teams from the department of public? is it public works or is it public health? it's public works, right? yeah. public works, as far as i don't know what i know. what i see. i can't tell you exactly what training they get, but what i do know is that there's a lot of discussion that goes on about, you know, trying to do this in the spirit of the city. absolutely. with the city's values and making sure

people are treated, you know, correctly with dignity and respect and all that. it still becomes contentious. you know, i mean, again, people out there trying to make a living and earn money. and when that's disrupte, it's causes issues with people. so and they sometimes tend to react in ways that, are criminal. yeah. i'm asking about training, i guess, for two reasons. one, i think, almost all the commissioners have have attended versions of the academy training and seen the value that can be. i know we've had outside agencies. i wonder if there would be a way, given the academy's expertise in crisis intervention training, and obviously it wouldn't be the same level as like rcmsar training with active attackers. but i wonder if there's a training that our academy staff could put together. the agencies that are involved in this might be might benefit from our sort of state of the art training staff and our ability to do that. i also wonder, and yeah,

i'll ask the agendize this and if anything, i think it might be helpful to see if we could have collaboration with our relevant sister commission. i know it was helpful to have the juvenile commission when we talked about 7.01. if we want to make sure we're having a holistic approach here to work, to see which i guess would be the whatever commission oversees there, just to see how we could have this coordination. so we're all about that. so, i'll make that request to agendize for a future meeting. but thank you. thank you. okay. go ahead. okay. thank you. so now i'll just go through the crime trends very briefly. overall. still a significant reduction in part one crimes 33%. and that's a 34% property crime decrease of 13%. violent crime decrease. our homicides are down 37%. which is significant. we are at the

lowest rate, this for year to date that we've been in a very long time. i can say that i got six years in front of me. and this is the lowest rate this time of year for those six years. but it's a very long time, the clearance rate is about 90% for the homicides, which our homicide unit is doing some really good work. i will say i do think that our strategies with our car break ins and some of our property crime have really paid off. we've made some, some very impactful arrests on crews and people that we believe are very prolific, the flock cameras are paying off dividends because when those vehicles get put in the system as wanted, when they commit a crime, we are, i think, finding cars and people that we probably would not have found or if we did find them, we would not have found them as quickly as we're finding them. so that's been very helpful. the bottom line on all that, we're about 57% lower than where we were in car break ins this time last

year. this is the lowest rate since like 2015, actually, since 2014, i think 2015 is when we saw significant jump in car break ins. and we are we are lower than actually 2014 this time of year. so that's a lot of good work. and hard work is being done. so we hope to keep that going and hopefully we can continue to drive that down. and, to cut this short, just there were, the homicide, two homicides during the reporting period. i already talked about one last week, there was a second one that happened after commission meeting last week where it was a shooting on mission street, both victim and the person that was with the victim are from not from san francisco. and unfortunately, one of the victims succumbed to the injuries from the gunshot wounds. we have made two arrests in that shooting. there is another outstanding. at least one other outstanding suspect that we're still looking for. but again, some really, really

good work and quick work done by both patrol and the responding, homicide investigators that resulted in those arrests. so that is i'll stop there because i know i'm past time, but that's the highlights of this week's report. thank you, sergeant. members of the public i'd like to make public comment regarding line item four. please approach the podium. good evening again, i just wanted to thank everyone that came out to the board of supervisors concerning my son named renaming of the street 1500 block of grove to arbor castle junior. this is just one step, it's not closure, but it's just one step of the battle and the fight that i've been doing

for 18 years. and. and just to thank those that came out and all of you that came out, to benedicto and the chief and those that showed up, i really appreciated the community, the, the letter from the da to the board of supervisors also supporting me. and, just just wanted to thank everyone for that. and, and to not stop. you know, supporting us mothers and fathers, i think about that little girl. we were just talking about that, that the child protective services got involved, and i hope and pray that they're not going to take this child from her mom, because sometimes it can end up like that because of something the mother did or having a child out

there, so i'm just praying that for that family too. and again, thank those that came out and those that will continue to support this will also bring awareness to unsolved homicides. and if mothers see that, you know, that we can stand together and maybe they will do more for their loved one that they lost. and with that i thank everyone. thanks and. there is no further public comment. line item five d.p.a director's report discussion report on decent or sorry recent d.p.a activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determine whether to calendar any of the issues raised for future commission meeting. executive director rosenstein good evening, chief scott. good evening, president elias. commissioners and the public. my name is diana rosenstein. i'm

here on behalf of our executive director, paul henderson. i wanted to give you some brief highlights of what we've done this past week, the we continue to close cases in a more timely manner, in the past, we've had a number of cases that were past the charter mandated 270 date, this time around, we have one that is not tolling, which means that we are meeting our deadlines in a more efficient manner, we continue to wait patiently for adjudication. of the 117 cases that are at the chief's level and the 12 cases that are at commission level, we continue to see the same allegation trends as before, our top allegation that we are investigating from this week has been officers behaving or speaking inappropriately, we were busy this week updating our policies and procedures on sb 1421 and sb 16 responses. and

we're taking steps to make the productions more efficient prospectively by using our insight system to identify, the prospective cases in a more in a better manner, which will help our skeleton crew in this area. since we have so few people that are able to conduct this work, last but not least, we are releasing our data, in a more accessible and more user friendly format through data sf. and there will be further information about that launch, and the work that our, operations manager, nicole armstrong, has been doing, to make sure that we're able to comply with that in the future, no updates on audit because, director henderson finally agreed to give steve a vacation. so steve is somewhere out there living his best life. so i do

not have any audit updates, other than that, i'm happy to answer any questions that anyone may have. why didn't he take us with him? that's the question i have exactly, exactly. great job. very efficient. so efficient. we have no questions for you, sergeant. for any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item five. please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item six. commission reports discussion and possible action. commission president's report, commissioner's reports and commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for consideration at a future commission meeting. commissioner benedicta, thank you. president elias, a couple items for my report, i attended the 282nd recruit class graduation alongside commissioners clay and

walker to greet our 12 newest recruits. and so i. and so we continue to welcome these new recruits to the academy. it was a really excellent ceremony with a wonderful class that we got to recognize their. along with commissioner yee, i also attended, this is fitting, given that it is the anniversary of nine over 11. this weekend was the annual police and fire mass. the first responder mass that dates all the way back. i think it's the 76th annual fire mass was presided over by the archbishop, was attended by the chief. the sheriff, our new interim fire chief and the park ranger. as well as leaders of the interfaith council. and it was a really wonderful occasion to recognize, all the first responders across the various, the various disciplines. yes. and sheriff paul miyamoto, and to recognize the officers, to recognize the important work of the first responders, as well as to recognize those that we lost in the last in the last year, as

well. and finally, earlier this week, as she hinted at, the chief and i were very privileged to appear at the board of supervisors land use committee hearing to speak in support of supervisor dean preston's resolution to rename the 1500 block of grove after miss brown's son, aubrey plaza. there was really tremendous community support. a number of people spoke, and the resolution was unanimously adopted by the committee and sent up to the board of supervisors, like miss brown said, it's not closure. it's not justice. but what the that street renaming represents is a promise. it's a promise that this department, this commission, this city will not forget our cosa's death will not forget miss brown's tireless work. and will a promise that will continue to work on that case and work on all unsolved homicides. i do want to take a moment to really recognize miss brown for her tireless advocacy

over these last 18 years. most people, when confronted with the kind of grief that she experienced, would drown in that grief. and instead of drowning in that grief, what miss brown did was build a boat and pick up other people that were drowning instead. and has captained that for 18 years. and brought comfort and solace to so many people, and has been a tireless advocate, transforming that grief into passion and service and renaming the 1500 block of grove to arbor casa is just a small way that the city can recognize that tireless work and make that commitment and promise that, we will not let these things be forgotten. so thank you, mr. brown. commissioner yanez. thank you, president elias, quick report. we had another meeting for our language access. dgo at mission station.

and it was actually, it was a very productive meeting. there was a little incident, though, chief, that i want to raise to your attention, you know, we push for having one of the meetings outside of headquarters and having trying to increase community participation and engagement and, there the when i got to the meeting, i mean, i was aware of where the meeting was going to be taking place, but there was no signage. there was no direction about how to get into the meeting for community, and i know that we're going to be talking about community policing. so it kind of is aligned with this. but, is there an expectation for when we're having, you know, input sessions like this for the department to conduct some sort of outreach and, you know, signal and message to community about their ability to access these spaces, normally, what was the meeting, commissioner? mission station. mission station. so normally, what we do, i mean, the station is easy

enough to get to, but oftentimes we will have somebody out there to direct people. what room? it's usually in the community room at mission station, which is right outside. inside that lobby, right as you enter, but that's normally what we do. somebody out there to the rec or point people that the, you know, the meeting is here, and if that wasn't done, that's just, you know, an an oversight that we need to correct. and i would love for you to convey that to the policy teams that, you know, we actually had some speakers who wanted to give public comment. the doors were shut on them. the people at the front desk did not know what they were there for. and my understanding is that they were told that they they weren't allowed into the room, and that's what was conveyed to us, we ended up having a, you know, kind of restart the meeting and allow those people to come in and give public comment. but it was a little distressing to, to see, you know, people going out of their way in the middle of the day to come and give public

comment and not to be guided or directed or received in the manner that i would hope that our department envisions receiving people. and there was also, a weekend not too long ago. and i know this is it happened during our break, so i haven't been able to bring it up. but on the weekend of july 29th, mission station was just closed. there was no signage, there was no messaging, the station was just closed. i had a friend who flew in from las vegas to file a report as a result of something he's dealing with. i gave him some guidance. i said, it's probably the best way to do it is just physically go there, closed. is there a protocol for how we should be communicating to community about when there will be such a closure at one of our, you know, busiest stations? yeah, that is very rare for a station to be closed that day, if i'm not

mistaken, was the day that luciano ortega passed away and i believe what happened that day is the mission station officers basically went to the hospital. we got officers from around the city to backfill. so there was there was some confusion. there if, you know, if the station was closed. but we don't close police stations, absent an extreme, you know, death of an employee is an exigent circumstance. but normally we will cover and at least keep the minimum footprint there to keep services going. and the police, any police station. so that's something that i will bring back to our our team to make sure that we just debrief on that if that, you know, if the station was closed because the public didn't know. i mean, that was a tragic situation. i was at the hospital and i think everybody who was working when they found out that luciano had passed away, went there to support each

other. but we did backfill with officers from around the city, there were some transition there. so i believe that that was the reason. but still, that's something that's correctable. understood. and i, i mean, i can completely, envision how that situation, especially having been someone from mission station, as you know, and unfortunate circumstance, and it's not, you know, normal policy or normal practice, and the last question i do, it's kind of an update around our work with the language access. i had mentioned to you that the document that was drafted, excluded a very key piece of information, right? the, the card that people use to identify languages. so i asked for explanation and i it wasn't very satisfactory, i don't want to say that, there is anything nefarious going on, but, you

know, normally when we're getting updated copies, we're getting red line copies. i was told that there was a red line copy that cleared, clearly demonstrated that this item was removed, but i have not been able to locate that, and it is a little distressing, actually, to start from, to start working on a group that has community inpu, from a draft that has been you know, kind of outdated, and i know we're going to be agendizing this, but i just wanted to make sure that this was conveyed to you, i don't know how we got to this point, but i brought the issue to the attention of the folks managing that group, and i hope that we move forward with, you know, transparency, because that is the reason why we are tasked with the work that we're tasked. nobody necessarily, you know, is clamoring to take on these roles. but i think the least and minimum expectation from this

end is to have full disclosure about how we got to whatever point we're dealing with when it comes to policy, which, you kno, are you this is the limited english proficiency. 520, okay. yeah. i thought we sent you what you asked for on that. so it was updated, but the starting point was not the starting point where we should have begun. okay. and the omission of the language access card protocol, which was identified by a summary memo that was provided to us from dpa. and i didn't bring my file, but i'm a paper guy, and i actually had a copy of the old one and demonstrated it. and the reason that was provided to me for why that isn't being used anymore is that because people just aren't printing out the card and language access in this city, i think, is an essential,

expectation that we have of our providers, of every department. and so i hope that we are going to improve, in our communication with community, with my fellow commissioners, and that we are working hand in hand to improve our policies, not necessarily to hold, you know, to put anyone out about not doing their job properly. but this is the road that i've been tasked with, that's my update, and that's my report. thank you. okay, follow up on this. yes. okay. yes. thank you. and then you're going to agenda. did you fill out the blue that is. yeah yeah we were going to agendize that right. yes. okay you weren't here. you didn't get to fill out the purple last time. so you're doing it now. but sergeant youngblood will take care of that for us. thank you. i will thank you, sergeant. for any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item six, please approach the podium. there is no public

comment. line item seven presentation on sfpd's disciplinary review board findings and recommendations first quarter 2024 discussion. oh wow. we had to get you to come down from the stage. do rolled. look at that chair i appreciate it. yeah. of course. welcome. thank you. good evening. hold on. we got to get a timer on this. yep do we need stacy? never mind. we got it. and then how do we. he's doing that. so you'll forget about the timer. don't fall for the trick. i'll just. i'll push. okay good evening, president elias. chief

scott, commissioners, the public. my name is diana rosenstein, and i am one of the participants in the quarterly meetings that sfpd and dpa attend to discuss disciplinary, issues that come up and policy recommendations, training recommendations, via the disciplinary review board. and this is our, quarter. one for 2024 presentation. and i'm lieutenant springer, officer in charge of internal affairs. and i think most of you guys know m. we held our meeting on july 18th, and, those were the voting board members that were there. acting assistant chief peter walsh and acting deputy chief derrick jackson, along with all of our teams. so the aggregate

trends identified by internal affairs and dpa were as follows. for i.a.d, the top, violation that we saw was neglect of duty for body worn cameras, which has been pretty consistent, and the neglect of duty general was second at 20.62%. and conduct unbecoming an officer 18.56%, and then neglect of duty. failure to appear at the range was 16.49%. and for dpa for that quarter, we are top, trend for allegations sustained was improper search or seizure of a person property or vehicle, the second which was which comprised 16% of our cases inappropriate comments and behavior was next at 14%. failure to activate body worn camera in a timely fashion was 12%. and for third place we

had a tie. failure to comply with stop data entry and failure to prepare incident reports. they were both tied at 9%. so there were three internal affairs cases that closed in the first quarter that resulted in a policy failure. finding. the first case involved six officers responding code three, and that resulted in a three vehicle collision. the iad investigation focused on five allegations and the policy failure was regarding the activation of the officer's body, worn cameras. the policy stated that when responding to calls for service with a potential for law enforcement activity or any of the mandatory reporting circumstances, members shall begin recording by pressing the event button while in route and prior to arriving at the scene at the time of the incident, the department bulletin that had been in play 2175 had lapsed, and

subsequently 23 zero 45 was issued, which addresses activating while in route. also dgo 1011, which is on body worn cameras, did not include information on body worn activation while in route to calls for service. therefore, no policy was in effect. in addition to the time lapse, the investigation revealed that there was no mention of activating while responding. code three. it just was a activating while in a pursuit, in any policy, once dgo 1011 is revised, it will include that requirement as well. the second case involved a member cleaning their firearm in their office, and the investigation revealed that the only information in writing was that member shall place the muzzle of the pistol into the opening of the bullet trap container when reloading their firearm, so there was nothing in writing about

cleaning the firearm in any designated cleaning area was not covered in dgo 5.01 or any bulletins. d.o.j. 18 259 was actually rewritten and it's just in the process of going through the chain of command right now. so that will be included in tha. the third case for internal affairs involved disclosing confidential information online that may have compromised an investigation. the named member admitted to posting the dpa document protocol quarterly report fourth quarter 2022. the cover memo and the spreadsheet with unredacted identifying information. the report was the first one that the employee had seen since arriving at the unit, and the member was never trained or provided with any policy, protocol or unit order regarding the posting of the dpa document. prior to posting the document, the member was unaware that the

predecessor would only post the cover memo and not the spreadsheet. the member believed the document was in its final form and ready to be posted. action was immediately taken to remove the document from the website when it was discovered, and now, since this, sergeant youngblood has created a policy and they're also stamp it so it should not happen again. with respect to dpa's findings, we also had three policy failure cases in the first quarter. the first case involved a first phase recruit and his field training officer. thanks sorry, who detained a driver for allegedly conducting an illegal u-turn. the recruit also believed that he could arrest the driver for violating a vehicle code. section 12,500, driving without a license, despite the driver's possession of a temporary license. this occurred during covid, and so there were some issues with dmv issuing licenses in a timely

manner, the recruit handcuffed and pat, searched the driver, but ultimately issued an equipment violation citation without without entering stop data information. and it wasn't it wasn't until after the unlawful detention occurred that the fto explained to the recruit that the initial stop was was actually the stop. the basis for the stop was unlawful. in other words, the u-turn that the recruit observed was lawful because of where it occurred. so, we made a recommendation that, we noticed that the fto manual is outdated and that we need to make some recommendations regarding, situations where a field training officer may need to step in earlier rather than waiting until the recruit has conducted a full blown investigation. when the detention when their suspicion

that the detention and the basis for the initial detention was improper. so we just were recommending that in some situations that it like that, that the field training officer step in earlier and our recommendation, recommendation number two, which i will provide shortly, it corresponds with this particular incident. the second incident that we discussed. one second. let me turn back, involve the complainant that was arrested for assault with a weapon on a neighbor as the officers were exiting the building. the complainant became combative and started spitting at the officers. the officers, in order to prevent the complainant from spitting on them, held the complainants head against the wall. generally speaking, that type of conduct is prohibited by

deago 5.01. however we as a department don't really have an effective way to deal with spitting subjects, spit masks have been discussed, but there are significant, significant reasons why we stay away from them. but one of the recommendations that we made as a result of this case and other cases that we've seen where spitting has been an issue, is to amend at some point. i know you guys just amended deago 5.01, but at some point we should address this and make, spitting an exception to the rule that you cannot control someone by by holding their head. and like i said, i will give the full recommendation to the commission shortly. and the. thank you. the third case was interesting, actually, it was a case where, a woman, person. i'm not sure if it was a woman or not. actually yes, complained

about being stalked and the officers did a great job responding to her. they followed the protocol, but what we were able to determine is she was being cyber stalked. and as they were getting information and going to serve the obtain and serve the emergency protective order on the stalker, they were they left the information about her address in the emergency protective order, but and it turned out after the fact she notified them that she did not have, the stalker didn't have her address. so what we were we are going to recommend is to update the checklist that is currently in place to also add a question for the, for the officers to ask, does the stalker know your personal contact and if not, to keep it confidential? sorry, i'm taking forever. i'd had zero cases that

resulted in a training failure finding and so did dpa. correct, the oig submitted their review and they did not find any trends based on the information, any trends towards bias or any disparities, so no corrective action was recommended, and then i'll do these. okay. i think we talked a little bit about these so we can go over them pretty quickly, regarding the cleaning of the firearm that is being updated, regarding the fto training manual, as i explained, the fto manual should emphasize that that field training officer's responsibility to intervene if necessary, when their recruit makes the mistake that they need to, but they do need to retain the discretion, to as to when to intervene to allow for ascension. essential learning to occur as field training is designed to be a fail forward program, but but in

some situations they do need to step in earlier as we discussed, our other, recommendation is to update the arrest and control manual and dgo 5.01 so that officers receive clear and adequate training on how to properly restrain a spitting individual. doing so will clear up any confusion about whether spitting is considered an exigency. so we recommend that that portion of dgo 5.01 be updated to specifically explain that spitting should qualify, and under what circumstances, as an exigency, and then our last policy recommendation, as i just stated, is training and directing officers to ask the victim of stalking whether the suspect knows their address and whether they would like an epo issued, that's confidential, next steps and inputs. the q1 quarterly report submitted to the drb that we already talked

about. sorry, the second quarter, drb has yet to be scheduled. i'm the hold up, but i was sick. i promise i will get to that. and then we will review the q2 quarterly report and look for any disparities that concludes our presentation. thank you. i had a question on slide three where we talk about the aggregate trends, i noticed that the body worn camera is still one that keeps coming up. and i'm wondering if you can address or talk about how you plan to address these type of violations, especially given the fact that this is a continuing violation. we've seen for many years now, i know it got better a little while ago, but it seems to be back. but i am concerned about it, given the new policy wherein we're starting to rely more on body worn cameras and having all of the documentation be body worn camera rather than reports. so if this is already an issue now, without turning to

the trend of having things documented by body worn camera, what are you doing to address this? so our data actually includes failure to upload and title in a timely manner. and that those are generated by legal and after the officer is sent five notices then they refer it to iad. so it's not all just failure to activate which is good, and then i believe the new cameras correct me if i'm wrong, are they're already titling, so that part should go away unless they need to change it. and the good news is, i just spoke to lieutenant beauchamp, and he said the last, review they did, they didn't have any. so we actually talked just talked about that on. what about the legal aspect? because you just said that that that seems to be a hold up in terms of getting things processed and i have concerns about that because we addressed that too, when we talked about new policies, because the other issue was not

only putting everything on body worn camera, but having it be accessible to people who request it. like we already have a backlog on that. yeah so, i think when they when they do the audit that it stemmed from that because if they don't put that case number in like the district attorneys can't find it and stuff. so i know lieutenant beauchamp was working on that. and we're hoping now since they are we're getting all these complaints that it's starting to level out. and for us, i mean, we continue to be pretty consistent, along with chief scott, with respect to identifying and disciplining officers for violating the body worn camera policy, it's been pretty consistent between our offices and what we also started doing for the audit aspect of it is placing them on a 90 day pip. so in addition to it's starting at written reprimand, there are

now on this 90 day pip. did you want to i was just going to add, president elias the, the some of the software that we have, like the subscription, i mean, the transcription software and the ability to more quickly go go through the video and redact that we believe that's going to be very helpful in turning things around quicker. so once we get this on board, we do believe that will be helpful. well, i thought we got the redacting software, there in the budget. there is additional enhancements to our software. so i mean, the call that we were o. so redaction, we have some redaction software, the transcription software and things like that using ai, the ability to search for things a lot quicker. it's going to be very helpful. when do you anticipate getting that final, it should be within. i let me

let me get back to you rather than give you something and not be able to fulfill my promise. but, but i don't think it's going to be very long, but i'll get back to you with a more definitive, timeline. i appreciate that. second question is on, dpa's aggregate trends, the improper search or seizure. i know that, this is also an area of concern. that or or area that has that has been, identified as a category of discipline that, has been sort of consistent, and i know there was talk about doing trainings on search and seizure for the officers. and i know that you incorporated that in some of your, i think was it monthly when you wrote out to the district stations and do a joint presentation? where are we on on that in terms of training them on search and seizures? so we are not going out to the stations, but we do have, our director of training who i know

is in touch with captain perdomo, who is in charge in charge of training, and they talk regularly about updating each other on cases that are relevant and rolling it out to, a co as well as, the cadets. but, i think we could probably shore that up a little bit and i can talk to miss wilson about doing that. i think we should have a more definitive plan. my understanding is we were going to have videos. right, chief of training on searches and seizures for the officers on a regular basis or steady basis to keep them informed of the search and seizures. yeah, that is, that is part of the plan. and director lacey is in the, in the room as well. and between her and captain perdomo, i we have stepped up our search and seizure efforts. case law updates and that type of thing. search and seizure training efforts. there's still more work to be done to be more consisten,

but we have stepped it up from where we were. but there's still a lot to build on with search and seizure. i think i'd like to see it more. definitive plan put in place given, you know, the history of the search and seizures, and federal judges have commented on sfpd's search and seizure, so let's let's bring this back, i think, in a couple of months. and i did, i reached out to captain perdomo after, and he did say they do do search and seizure training. now every friday for aoc, pt and then he gave me a whole list, from the time of this incident, which was july of last year through february. so he gave me like a whole list and, they teach it to the recruits, and they started teaching it in the promotional class as well as, like, all the plainclothes classes. and then there's a he's listed here as a search and seizure. i.c.e. so there's a whole there is a whole list, but yeah. is dpa's input in or included in that? not to my

knowledge, no, but i think that we should. the whole point of having the videos and having dpa in the room for these joint training is that not only it gets the discipline, but dha or dpa gets the discipline, so they need to be in the room when it comes to search and seizures, especially since this is the top trend of disciplinary cases they receive. so they should be also providing input on this training so that officers are aware of what the department expects and what dpa expects in terms of how these cases are handled. madam president, how do you how do you determine this category? how do you come to know that it's a trend? where do you get the information from? oh, this is based on the results of the cases that we investigate in that quarter. so this is a court finding that there's illegal search. and that's how you get your you know, that's the trend. correct. so in other words for, for the first quarter of 2020, for the cases that we closed where we found officers acted improperly, the biggest number of cases had to do with improper

search and seizure for this court. and so that was a motion was filed. and the court made a finding. there's no motion. but what happens is that we bring these particular cases either, depending on the egregiousness of the misconduct, to the chief's attention for discipline or to you all for discipline. but i'm asking, how do we know before finding is made that there's a disciplinary issue as it relates to an illegal search and seizure? are you saying that you read this as it's illegal search and seizure? well, we have attorneys that review each and every investigation and make a determination based on the applicable case law, whether or not the officers acted properly. we take into consideration case law that's current as well as the dgo. so for example, there's a department general order that talks about detentions and the need for reasonable suspicion. and so what we do is we review the facts. we investigate, we review the facts, and we determine whether the officer, for example, had reasonable suspicion to detain a particular individual. and if we find that

they did not, we make a recommendation that this was improper. we make a recommendation regarding discipline, and we send it to the chief for consideration. so do we have a hearing? do we hear the facts to make that determination that you want a finding that done? that's what i'm asking, right? only when we believe that the conduct is so egregious that it warrants commission level discipline, which is in in the amount of 11, ten, 11 days or higher. so up to that point, just like we have attorneys on our staff, chief scott has attorneys, a police legal he has he has attorneys on his staff. and they as well as amo, reviews our findings and determines whether or not they agree or disagree with us. and then the chief makes a decision. so, chief, as relates to the education on search and seizure, why is it not the department? has the district attorney's law in motion attorney every quarter coming in and giving them the

trends in search and seizure, because that every county i know generally when i practice in private practice as a judge, there's a law in motion deputy for all search and seizure legal for the different counties. that lawyer handles all those cases, and they normally come in quarterly and do a seminar for the department so they'll know what the trends are. yeah, there's no formal reporting from the district attorney on on let's say there's a search and seizure issue. 1538 motion, there is feedback to individual investigators or officers, but there's no formal report like that. usually we find out about it if there's a complaint filed, a lot of times through the public defender's office or members of the public is when it comes to amo or dpa. so at this point, there is no no formal i know there are conversations that happen, but not a formal report like that. so that's what

i'm saying. they're an advocate, so they shouldn't be doing the training. it should be some source that's neutral, giving the training, not someone who may bring an action against them, training them and saying, you miss my training. that's what i'm trying to get to. yeah. so if i may just address that the majority of our cases actually don't come from criminal courts, when the criminal court system doles out a motion to suppress, that's granted. that is information that is provided to hopefully provide it to sfpd to incorporate and amalgamate in their training. we are talking about cases that never see the inside of a courtroom most of the time, and those are cases that where complainants are complaining to us, sometimes they're complaining that their house was searched and there's a search warrant and we say there's no there there. and the officers acted properly in response to a search warrant. but sometimes there are situations where we recognize that the officers improperly detained someone, that not not

all of our cases see the inside of a courtroom. so i think it is important for us to be involved in the training as well as the district attorney's office. but that's without any advocacy. you're making the decision based upon what you've read and said. this is illegal. i'm sorry. that's without advocacy. you're making a decision. this is illegal and there's no hearing. and witnesses come in who may have made a report. so the officer would have that confrontation as the law required. the constitution. but you're making all those decisions, correct? well, we don't make those decisions. we make recommendations. the chief makes the decisions and recommendations is based upon you believe that's an illegal search and seizure, correct. nobody's tested that information except for you. and then these people come to the chief. and the chief says, this is our finding. chief, we'd like you to do this, but there's been no interaction to say one way or the other. as somebody who's been in the trial department sends her. well, no, they do. they investigate when they get a complaint from the from joe public, who comes in and says, i was illegally search. i feel like i was detained or what have

you. they have investigators on staff who investigate with the allegation they get. they pull the body worn cameras. they review everything. they look at it. they have lawyers who apply the fifth amendment law. they then draft the report, and then it goes to the chief for the chief to review the same thing would happen with ia. the only difference is, is that ia doesn't handle complaints from the public. that's dpa's purview. so if a fellow officer came in and said, hey, i think officer x did, you know, violated somebody's fifth amendment, then ia would do the exact same thing protocol in terms of investigating and then making a recommendations. right. and if i can add also for example, as a former city attorney, city attorney's office handles 1983 causes of action where there's a fourth amendment violation all the time. that doesn't see the inside of a courtroom because it gets settled and they write letters to the chief that explain, like, this is a situation that opened you up to liability, and you should address this and teach the officers better. but i take the court. i know the court's

out of the picture. my question is, is there an advocate that represents the party that you're saying is engaged in the act so that they can confront, at least get, provide information that would counter? i see what you're saying. yeah, that's what i'm talking. right. we're not advocates. we are an agency that that informally and fairly reviews the information, the advocacy occurs when and if the chief notifies the officer that something that there is something to be disciplined and the officer asks for a chief's hearing. and at the chief's hearing, either if it's an ia, if it's an ia case, then the ia attorneys are present and the officer is present with their representative. and if it's a dpa case, the dpa is present. the attorney for dpa is present. and then the officers present with their representative and most of the cases are resolved in that manner. and it doesn't

matter. it's not just fourth amendment. all of the cases, whether it's fourth amendment amendment or failure to activate body worn camera, that's where the advocacy takes place. i'm just talking about the fourth amendment issue, but they're entitled to a hearing. absolutely. yes. correct. yeah. yes yeah. we just because these are the two agencies that impose discipline, it's important, i think, for officers to understand what their reasoning is when they go in and they investigate cases to draft these charges, because we're on television, the public is listening to us and they're hearing that they're doing making that decision. so now they know, yeah, they may make a finding, but it goes to the chief and they do get a hearing. so the public now knows they do get a hearing. it's not just these people. people get to make that decision without giving them an opportunity, because that's what they're saying. so no. absolutely. yeah, absolutely. and also too, even i think what you would also is important is even dpa or ia. anytime an officer is called in they're entitled to their union representative to be present. they usually have an attorney

there from their union that represents them. so they don't i haven't seen hardly any officer go in unrepresented, so there they have it. yeah so now everybody knows. so now it's clear they are there. yeah, the poa is on it. i'm saying the public out here is listening to us now. they know okay no problem. and we're happy to also, you know, when you come visit us to give you kind of a brief tutorial of how our case moves through the system. but yes, there is there's absolutely notice and an opportunity to be heard for officers to contest any finding that dpa makes or that the chief makes or that you guys make. because when you make the decision and an officer is unhappy with the decisions you guys make, they have the opportunity to appeal to the office of administrative hearings, we have cases there as well. commissioner yanez, in consultation with commissioner, judge clay here, we when we heard about the spitting incident and the policy failure there, is there a or was it

specific to this scenario that the, the reason why you're considering an exigency versus, i mean, post covid, it feels like spitting at an officer is more like an assault upon an individual. is that part of the thought process or was this recommendation based on this specific incident? this is about how to give the officers proper tools to deal with spitting subjects. so in terms of i think what you're asking me is, did we consider whether this was a crime or not? no, because that's not relevant to our analysis. what's relevant to our analysis is we don't want officers to get in trouble for using their hands on someone's head, because 5.01 strictly prohibits it, except for an exigency. and we don't want them to sit while the person spitting and try to determine, is this an exigency or not? we want to give them those tools and say, officer, in

this situation, it is an exigency. feel free to put your hands on someone's head. got it. so it's building on the existing policy to be able to deal specifically with this type of incident. correct. got it. great. thank you. thank you sergeant. you're good. yes okay. thank you sergeant, for members of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item seven. please approach the podium. there's no public comment. line item eight sapd firearm discharge review board report and in-custody death review board report, second quarter 2024 discussion. i apologize you're stuck with me again and it's probably going to be longer than ten minutes. what you don't confess ahead of time. where'd you learn that? there's two. sorry. so in the second quarter of 2024, the firearm discharge review board reviewed two o.r.s and one oid. the first officer involved shooting was 17

dash 001. this incident occurred on january 6th, 2017 at zero three 51 hours. in this situation, the reported victim called the police to report that their neighbor was violating a restraining order by hitting a shared wall in between the two houses in the middle of the night. the officers responded to the scene and split up upon the. upon arrival, officer number one contacted the reporting victim, who called the police, and officer number two contacted the person that was allegedly violating the restraining order, while officer number one was attempting to get background information from the reported victim, the subject could be heard yelling next door. so, officer one, out of concern for officer number two, left the reported victim abruptly to render aid or assistance. if needed, the subject could be heard clearly on the audio portion of the bwc as they berated, yelled, argue and threatened the two officers. the

subject repeatedly told the officers to leave, which the officers responded that they were not going to leave until their investigation into the violation of the restraining order was completed. this displeased the subject, who became more and more irate with the officer's attempts to inform them of the terms of the restraining order. the subject made repeated hostile, belligerent and profane comments to both the officers for several minutes before they were able to determine the subject's identity. the subject appeared to be speaking irrationally and nonsensically at times, and after about three minutes of alternating between yelling at the officers and multiple multiple demands that the officer leave their stairway, the subject entered their home and the officers descended down the stairs to try and read the restraining order more carefully. at this point, all they had was the reported victim telling them that it was a restraining order, and they were trying to figure out if it was served yet, or not. the subject

then reemerged from their home with an unknown dark, dark object in their hand, which was later determined to be a portable phone. the subject launched back into insults towards the officers, who then ascended the stairs a second time. the subject again demanded that the officers leave their stairwell, and up to this point had remained behind the security gate on which was on the landing of the stairs right outside there, at the same time, the officers remained solely on the area of the stairs leading to the landing, that any member of the public could access. officer number one attempted to advise the subject of the restraining orders content to which the subject responded even more aggressively, while simultaneously banging their hand on the gate and yelling the subject again demanded that the officers leave and gestured in an aggressive way with their

hands and arms. while yelling. the subject was still behind the gate and the officers remained on the stairs and repeated that they would not leave the subject. then aggressively pulled open the security gate door and stepped through the gateway, but remained on the landing. officers both moved back slightly as the subject advanced and waved their right hand and ordered. they leave. officer number two had removed their pepper spray canister as the subject approached, and warned them that they would be sprayed, to which the subject responded with profanity. the subject continued to make aggressive waving gestures with their hand, at which point officer number two deployed their pepper spray towards the subject, who kicked outward towards officer number two and then retreated into their home. the pepper spray contact contacted the subject, as well as the two officers. officer number two later told interviewers it was at this

point that the subject's foot had contacted their face. both officers retreated partway down the stairs, during which time officer number one dropped the copy of the restraining order provided to them by the reported victim. the subject reemerged and picked up the dropped paper while standing on the stairwell and then went back into their home at the base of the stairs. both officers tried to clear their eyes of the pepper spray and called for an ambulance for the exposure. the subject then opened the window and yelled at the officers that they were interested in getting the matter resolved. officer number one yelled to the subject to return the paper, and officer number two yelled that the subject should come out so the officers could get them help for the pepper spray exposure. the subject asked the police if they were going to leave the subject. then exited their home, tossed the papers back towards the officers, and again reentered the residence. the subject suddenly reappeared in an even

more aggressive and angry manne, stepped forward, squatted, clenched their fists and yelled irately! and threatened to harm the officers. the subject then bent over to pick up part of the phone that was dropped, and officer number one charged up the staircase, and officer number two followed. both officers told interviewers that they thought this was an opportunity to try and arrest the subject, but the subject retreated as the officers advanced, with officer number one in the lead with their baton, which they used to strike the subject at least twice. the subject also reached for officer number one with a closed fist and struck them in the face. the contact caused officer number one to fall backwards down the stairs, past officer number two, and officer number two was left to face the subject alone, who had a positional and height advantage. they had limited force options as the pepper spray and baton had failed to prevent the subject from attacking. officer number two drew their department issue

firearm and fired, striking the subject twice. following the ois, the subject barricaded themselves inside their residence and after approximately 25 minutes, the tactical unit and specialist team members entered the residence and took the subject into custody. subject was transported to sfa where they were treated for their injuries, and both officers were also transported to sfa for their injuries. officer number one was treated for a broken nose and officer number two was treated for scrapes and abrasions. the recommendations to the chief for officer number one regarding general order 6.09, restraining orders, improper conduct and for body worn cameras, improper conduct. because he was late in activating or they were late, specifically proportionality immediate threat and reasonable force, they were found proper conduct. and officer number two,

same, improper for the restraining order section and proper conduct and all the other categories. and in regards to the restraining order, it was because they didn't have the time to verify the restraining order prior to contacting the subject, which is one of the requirements in that general order, now we have, stephanie to present dpa's, findings on the same ois. i think we should restart. definitely and, oh, do you want yours lower? i think that's what i was going to pull out. i was going to politely point that out, but not. today. thank you. all right. good evening, commissioners. chief scott, thank you so for, dpa's case number 42694 dash 17, which

is ias number 17 001 dpa saw this case very differently. key to this was that the restraining order violation was alleged to be between neighbors. so it was known ahead of time to not be a dv situation. this is important because the rules are different for arresting somebody, for violating a restraining order. if you do not have a private person's arrest, and it did not occur in your presence, it's different. if it's a dv case. so the officers responding knew that this was not dv. the call was placed from the neighbor to the non-emergency number, and it was essentially a noise complaint that the restrained person was allegedly hitting the wall. so ahead of time, there was no emergency, no report of a weapon, no threats. this is the

scene and this is extremely important because this stairway is where everything occurred. and this stairway goes only to the home of the restrained person. that's key because it means it's curtilage. so the tactical issues that dpa identified here and discussed at drb were that the two responding officers immediately split up. so this sort of created what happened after. there's nothing obviously there's no misconduct. there's nothing wrong with doing it this way. but in this particular case, it created some serious issues. there was no attempt at de-escalation. so as you heard, i'm not going to re recite the facts. however, it's important to note that when the person came out and was angry and demanded that officers get off the stairs and the officers

at one point did go down the stairs, there was no attempt to do something else to maybe stop, get more information from the reporting party. and no attempt to just let things calm down, even though at that point they had all the time in the world, as everybody has already pointed out, the restraining order had not been verified. they didn't even have time to be certain what the terms were, because as anybody who's practiced sort of in criminal court knows, that most of the standard restraining orders are 150 yards. but these are next door neighbors. so they didn't even have an opportunity to see what what precisely are the terms. and was it properly served? additionally, the neighbor indicated that he wanted the noise to stop the neighbor never said he wanted an arrest made, and the officers

never asked him if he wanted an arrest made. and that's key to what occurred later, because this is a non dv restraining order and violation of such a restraining order is a misdemeanor and nothing occurred in the officer's presence without a private person's arrest, they had no authority under the california penal code to arrest the neighbor for violating the order. and then the deployment of pepper spray. now that you've seen the stairwell in that small space was very dangerous to the officers. and in fact, the officer that deployed the pepper spray, not only did manage to get the subject, but got his partner full in the face, the significance of the officer's refusal to leave the stairs after the first, the first time they descended? is that everything after that was not lawful. the officers had no lawful right to be there. not

only did dpa come to this conclusion, but there was parallel criminal proceedings with the subject and that matter went all the way to the court of appeal. the court of appeal also found that because that stairwell is curtilage, of course, the officer can go up and knock on the door in the first instance, right? just like they can come to my house and knock on my door. but once the person ejected them, they had no right to go back up those stairs, especially given that they didn't have a right to make an arrest. that's important because geo 5.01 requires that all force be used for a lawful purpose. and here dpa found a failure to deescalate with the time and distance and also the attitude of the officers. there was a lot of i call it tit for tat. right. and it was get off

my stairs and well, we're here and we're not leaving. but the fourth amendment actually required them to leave the stairs at that point, not only was there no call for backup, despite this, back and forth, back and forth, one of the officers actually declined to back up. there was no call for sit and there was no plan. once the officer, once the subject ordered the officers off the stairs. right. because we have actually three entries back onto these stairs. finally, there wa, in dpa's view, no probable cause for an arrest at the time that the officers sort of decided that because the subject was bending down, it'd be a good time to tackle him, because they didn't have a private person's arrest. the subject made statements indicating that he was sort of aware that there was an order. but again, the officers had no idea what the

terms were or if there had been a violation because there was a discussion by the subject of him taking out his trash. so was he making noise, doing something lawful, or was he making noise to harass them, they had no opportunity to determine that. so because of that, and i apologize, i don't have a slide with with our specific findings. we found neglect of duty for failure to properly investigate the restraining order, because, again, once the subject yelled, get off my stairs and did all that and then went back in the house and the officers went down, they had a perfect opportunity to go back next door to the reporting party and get some more information. and because any two parties who are involved in a restraining order proceeding generally have some prior knowledge of each other, that would have been this neighbor had lived next door to

the subject for about a decade. i believe, and just would have been a wealth of information for how the officers could have dealt with this person, or they could have chosen not to deal with them, given that they had a nonviolent misdemeanor. no private person's arrest. they could have talked to the reporting party. do you want an arrest? and dpa has seen many cases like this where the officers then go to the da's office if they have the private person's arrest and they get a they get a warrant, right? because for misdemeanors, they do not go into people's homes. they generally go that route and get the arrest warrant instead. then we did a unwarranted action for the arrest without cause. and i've already covered that. the failure to take required action, which was the leaving the stairs and then the 5.01, which encompasses all of the things that led to the shooting. thank you. thank you. appreciate

that. thank you. so i know you're going to go back to your presentation, but i think we can we've read all of the materials in preparation for this week. so maybe you can go to the findings. yeah okay. or even the chart at the end unless fellow commissioners have questions. you mean this one, right? okay. so perhaps maybe we can just open it up for questions. at this point, since we've reviewed all of the packet and the materials. so any questions from the. i have a question. go ahead i have a question for mr. wilson for incident. the 2017 one, i think, you know, given how much time has passed since then like would do you think there have

been changes either to, to any of the relevant policies themselves or to relevant training that would have, which would prevent an incident like this from happening in the same way in the future. in this particular instance, both officers were cit trained. i previous to cmc, it may have been, i think that the cia cit training is more robust and more because that was pretty early in the or relatively earlier in the department cit and maybe predate cmcr, i think. and so cmc is amazing. i've had the pleasure of attending cmcr. i think that probably would have, but the basic principles that are taught in cmc, sorry, in cit and reinforced in cmc are most importantly the like time and distance and like breathing. and let's collect information. i think that the department has

really, really reinforced that. i mean, it's been seven years now. so in the last seven years there's been a huge move toward that and a lot of emphasis on de-escalation. i do think if we saw this scenario because i've seen similar scenarios, that they are handled, generally much better and with a lot more calm. thank you. thank you, director rosenstein. henderson. yeah sorry. i just wanted to interject and say that this was a case where this case occurred while the while sfpd was still rolling out the 40 hour course, and not all of the officers had been trained on the 40 hour course. and i believe that one of the officers involved in this particular incident had not had the 40 hour course yet. but don't quote me on it. thank you. thank you. sergeant, for members of the public you'd like to make

public comment regarding line item eight, please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item nine discussion and possible action to approve revised department manual. community policing and problem solving manual for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. good evening, president elias. commissioners acting executive director and chief members of the public. i'm catherine maguire. i'm the executive director of the strategic management bureau. and we come to you this evening, and by we, i mean acting lieutenant sandra peregrina. officer jesus nevarez and juliana henry garcia and officer juliana henry garcia. these fine people are almost all report in to sp, but, officer,

henry henry garcia. i'm sorry. i was like. garcia. no she works in the community engagement division. so, lieutenant acting lieutenant peregrina is giving the presentation on the community policing manual this evening, and we're all available to answer any questions you have. the reason that, the acting lieutenant is providing the presentation this evening is that, professional standards did a lot of work to compile the manual and to help along to help out community engagement and help along some of the recommendations that we're waiting for this manual to get completed. so, with that, i will delay no longer. go ahead. good evening everyone. president elias, commissioners, assistant chief and community members, i'm

sergeant sandra peregrina, and again, i'm the acting lieutenant of professional standards, standards and principled policing. and i'm here this evening to speak about a policy revision for department manual two, which we're bringing up right now. the presentation for that, it's the community policing and problem solving manual.

so this manual update was prompted by the collaborative reform initiative recommendation 41.1. the manual is outdated and the staff identified best practices and recommendations from other reform initiatives as an overall framework to follow. this manual aligns with policy and strategy. 1.00108 the community policing strategic plan. the six pillars of 21st century policing, the four tenets of procedural justice and police legitimacy, legitimacy and local ordinances related to community policing and engagement. additionally, this manual is aligned with best

practices for 21st century policing. this update was made possible with the help of a steering committee and executive sponsor working group, which was established during the creation of strategy 1.0, dgo 108 and the community policing strategic plan. the development process for this manual was three part and it included internal planning, a strategic steering committee and community engagement partners internally. internally for planning and development. the goal was for this manual to provide a roadmap for department members in the area of community engagement, and this steering committee was made up of the chief assistant chiefs, deputy chiefs, directors, commanders, captains, representatives from police employee groups, officers, external advisors, sf controller's office, sf civic bridge, sfmta and d.o.j. executive sponsor working group. outreach occurred in sfpd engagement with over 100 sworn and non-sworn members, community members and leaders, and industry experts, as well as

focus groups and sfpd members and the community. the focus of this manual, as i stated earlier, is to provide an internal roadmap for community engagement and problem solving. the community engagement division manages many programs and events, and this manual describes each of those and provides guidance to department members. resources provided in this manual are include qr codes, instructions for application of the sara model of problem solving, direction for members related to policy and partnerships, and there's also information on data collection and metrics, including community engagement, tracking, internal tracking of community engagement events and surveys. we worked with dpa on this manual and 25 total recommendations related to it were provided to us by them. 13 were included in the manual, 11 were not included, and one existed in other policy. the following may account for the 12

recommendations that were not included after dpa's review, some portions of the manual were removed. language from other recommendations were already codified in other policy. this manual is instructional and informational and not a place to set or create policy. some of dpa's recommendations did not fall under the authority of the manual, and some recommendations are administrative functions and therefore not included in the manual. there are some edits that need to happen in this manual. effective july 1st of this year, the commander position at cid was eliminated, and now that's with a captain. so without that position, we respectfully request that the that we replace that the police commission replace cid commander with commanding officer of cid. and that completes the presentation. thank you for your attention and we're we'd like to take any questions at this time. commissioner, thank you for that presentation. and thank you for this hard work. i think this, a

lot of time on this commission gets spent talking about dgos, which are very important and oftentimes when dgo discussions get difficult, we'll punt them to manuals and we'll say, oh, this belongs in a manual, not a d.o.j. and it's very easy for us as commissioners to say that. and much harder to then actually do that work of implementing the changes in the manuals. i, we reviewed the materials. i think that the changes make sense. my one question was about that, that change from cdd, from commander to commanding officer. in light of that reorganization, you know, since department organization does change regularly, are there other places where maybe it's not out of date where we say something rank specific and we should also change those, like, are there other places where we might say commander because there is a commander, but maybe in a year from now that'll also change for whatever reason, i appreciate that input. i think that's worth taking a look at, the commanding officer name encompasses whoever is that person at this point, it's a captain. so for that specific title, i think that would be taken care of by just that simple replacement. but we

can definitely take a look and see if that applies elsewhere. okay just, the manual is very thorough. it's very, i think, informative. informative. with regards to the community input, like are there? i know you said that there were at least 100 officers who provided input, how many organizations participated in developing, feedback? there was a number there. back on slide, it looks like three. there's a pretty good list related to the steering committee, including internal and external partners that are listed there, the chief is was definitely a part of it. assistant chiefs, deputy chief. these are internal, of course, representatives of police, employee groups, external advisors. i'd have to look into that to get an exact list of who those are. the controller's office, sf civic bridge, sfmta,

and, executive sponsor working groups that were put together during collaborative reform also played a part in this. we were robust with those working groups at the time and definitely utilized their input quite a lo. got it. and is there a place where the surveys outside of the yearly annual reports? i know every district or every station kind of summarize summarizes their surveys. is there anywhere where this is aggregated for us to just be able to get a sense of how many community members or what type of feedback was obtained. i would have to get back to you on that. i know for certain we do have ongoing surveys on our department website that we're looking to kind of build up, but in direct response, i would definitely need to get back to you on that as well, chief, i will ask that when that next annual report, which i believe is due in november, that we do include some of that aggregated data of how many people are actually

attending the, you know, community advisory boards, because there's a lot of talk about metrics and data. and the only purpose of collecting data is to improve our services. but yet i've never seen a year to year kind of analysis of, are we engaging more partners? are we expanding our community partnerships with organizations that care about safety, that care about policing? because it will inform the direction of the department to improve our community engagement strategies, to improve our relationship building. i mean, oftentimes that those relationships lead to resolving incidents before they even become incidents, right? and i think proactive community policing and engaging in partnerships, especially when i know that the language around restorative justice is in here. and how do we use data and metrics to inform our development and our improvement in this area? yeah we can do

that. i think we keep some of those statistics, but i don't know how expansive. so we'll follow up with you. yeah. the way i found them was every, you know, station has their surveys aggregated and summarized. but i haven't seen a department wide analysis of this and how we could use previous years versions to then improve our access and outreach to other communities. but thank you for your work on this manual. thank you. can i get a motion? yeah, i will make a motion to approve revised department manual two for the department to use in meeting conferring with the effective bargaining unit, subject to our labor relations resolution with the requested amendment to change the cd commander to commanding officer and requested between now and final passage, the department reviewed to look for any other rank specific notes and also update those to commanding officer. second, for any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item nine. please approach the podium