president, i'd like to take rol. commissioner clay. president. commissioner. walker president. commissioner. benedicto. president commissioner. yanez.

sorry, commissioner. i did not unmute you. commissioner yanez. for roll call. are you here? present? commissioner yee here. and vice president carter is in route. president elias, do you have a quorum? also with us tonight, we have chief scott from the san francisco police department and executive director paul henderson from the department of police accountability. thank you. welcome, everyone, to our october second meeting. happy october, let's call the first item line item one weekly officer recognition certificate presentation of an officer who has gone above and beyond in the performance of their duties. officer ryan walsh, star number 1967. northern station. all right. good evening. commissioners. executive director. henderson, chief scott, i'm jason sawyer, the commanding officer of northern station. and it is my honor to present to you tonight, officer

ryan walsh from northern station. officer walsh came to the academy in may of 2014. so it's been a little over ten years. he's been with us. he's been smiling like this for ten years straight. he is born and raised in san francisco. he's the son of a san francisco police officer. his dad, officer mike walsh, who's going on his 30th year, and he was assigned to central station, tenderloin station, and then at northern station. but there's a couple of things that stand out, which is why officer walsh is here tonight. one of the first things is i was under a lot of pressure in the northern. we had this very publicized safeway theft problem, and my command staff came to me and said, jason, you got to put a plan together and fix safeway and help with all these problems. and he's one of my guys. that was one of the first to say, i'm in, coach, get me off the bench, put me in, and he's part of the reason that the safeway, the theft has fallen

over 50%, every time that they go, the people are basically getting arrested, thanking him for being so polite on what a great officer he is, the other thing that really separates him, besides always showing up and being so friendly, is something that i had the great honor of talking with commissioner clay about when we first met was about ethics, and it's a big thing to me that what the police officers, when we go out, what we're hired for to do is that we represent the public well and above reproach on how we act and what we do. and this is what the officer that looked like when they came from a good family, they do the right thing. and you know that if you call the police and an officer like officer walsh comes up, you got the right officer with you. and these are things that we can't stress enough. i told officer walsh when he was coming tonight, i said, this is a great almost like a celebration because i understand as the police commission, sometimes it's on the other end where you have to deal with the cops. but this is a very positive light on what a great officer looks like,

who exemplifies what you expect of your police department. so you might say, hey, jason, isn't there anything about this guy that's wrong? he did go to sacred heart, but we're going to let that slide. so one of the things i did tell his dad and mike, i got to say, i'm very complimentary. you raised a great son. this is someone who i would be proud to have as my son. i'm old enough to be his dad, but i don't think you could ask for any more in what you expect from your police department. so it is my honor to present the award for officer of the week to officer ryan walsh. all right. awesome. thank you. step on up. let me have some questions for you. captain. you ruined the surprise because every, self-respecting san franciscan native has to tell us where their high school is. because that's the. isn't that the pop quiz to really see if you're really from the city or not? or so i'm told, and i think that sacred heart is an excellent school, given the fact that former, commissioner mizuko is an alum and a very active

member of recruiting people to the school. so you come from obviously good stock, given your father and your schooling. so congratulations. we're very happy to be celebrating you. and i think that it's really important because the way that he describes you is a way that i don't think that people view officers, which is friendly, approachable sometimes. sometimes we get people who have, a different view and perspective of what police officers or how their approach is. so i think that, you know, it's really great to hear these kind of descriptors used for you. and so congratulations, i'm so happy for you. turn it over to the chief. thank thank you, president elias. and officer walsh, i just want to say thank you. i mean, for captain sawyer to describe. really? i'll call it the intangibles that we really value and respect in this department, how you treat people, you know, safety with respect is not just the slogan

on the door. it comes with the type of officers like you who that's who you are and what you do. and that goes a long, long way in terms of building community trust, building relationships in the community and building those same relationships within the department. so i just want to applaud you. i know it's a you know, when you when you do that every day, it becomes kind of that's just who he is. but it's a big deal. and we are so happy to call you out for who you are and what you brought to this city and this police department. so thank you. thank you, chief director henderson, i don't think you get to speak because you went to sea, right? no, i was waiting for people to clap. yes, yes, i did. saint ignatius college preparatory for young christian academic men and now women. i did go there. so we'll let him. we'll let him speak, i was just going to say i actually have seen officer in safeway, you probably don't even remember her because i was just on. but

he was super friendly, and i was like, he is happy, which was great. it's an amazing thing. and what i'm excited about is seeing the legacy continue from having worked with your father a couple years ago, while i was at the da's office. he was much older than me. i was so young. but to see that work continuing now and in this way is like a really great thing. and so much of the work that we do covers the full spectrum of policing and officer engagement, and seeing you there and the work that you do and how you do it, i think is important that we're recognizing tonight. so it's a big deal. and i thank you for your service. i'm disappointed about sacred heart, but you know, it's okay. i guess it's, it worked for you. i'm glad it worked for you. thank you very much. yeah. thank you for being here. and thank you for your work. commissioner benedicto. absolutely congratulations, officer walsh. and thank you,

captain sawyer, for that introduction. i definitely echo what president elias said that it's aside that we don't get celebrated enough. the fact that we're trying to and have spent a long time trying to transition to that model of service. and i think that you've clearly exemplified that in your interactions with the community and hearing what we say. i think that i've heard from too many members that, oh, you know, like with a sigh of relief that, oh, you know, i've never i've never met a commissioner before. i've never been before the commission before as a sign that they've never been in trouble. and i'm glad to me that officers have never been in trouble. but i think it's important to also have a culture where we get to interact with officers, even not in that circumstance. so it's, thank you for that recognition, captain. and bring him before us and congratulations, officer. thank you, commissioner yee, thank you very much, president, cindy elias, congratulations to you. ten years. that's a long time. and staying off the radars and, i want to thank also the captain, jason sawyers for putting them forward. i know how

difficult it can be for every year. i mean, every day we face the challenges in keeping our community safe. and you've done that. so, kudos to you. and then continue your success and keeping us all safe in yourself. thank you very much. thank you. we also want to give you an opportunity if you want to share any words of wisdom or advice. all i'd like to do is thank the police commission, thank the chief, thank the captain and for his kind words. i very much appreciate it. and yeah, thank you, i appreciate it. thank you and your family because. oh yeah, i think they said, yeah, that was first before anyone else, right? yeah, because they really do. i think as your dad probably set the example, they set the, they cover so that you can do your job every day and night and, and serve the city. so we thank you also for your service at this time. so thank you so much. thank you sergeant.

excuse me for any member of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item one, please approach the podium. and there's no public comment. 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 dpa 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 public 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, commissioners and president elias. my name is marlena mckee cabada and i am

the campaign associate at walk san francisco, a pedestrian advocacy nonprofit here in the city. and in 2014, already ten years ago, i was 14 years old. that was a while ago. but yeah, me too. me too. the police commission and the police department committed to vision zero. the city's policy to end traffic related fatalities and injuries. sadly, people are still dying at unacceptable numbers and over 500 people continue to be hurt in traffic crashes every year. the numbers are staggering for those outside of a vehicle. these deaths and injuries show that the city has that. what the city has done so far is not yet sufficient for the size and depth of this problem. we believe vision zero is possible. other cities are proving it. this is the right goal and approach to end fatalities and injuries in san francisco last month, wtxf, along with the vision zero coalition, sent our shared recommendations on how the city

can accelerate progress. to your commission. i have a copy for you here today. they're over there, and we have it online available at wtxf. forward slash vision zero platform as our city's leaders make a plan for the next phase of vision zero, the sf police department is a critical member of the city team in ending traffic crashes in the past six months, we've seen a renewed focus on enforcing our traffic laws, specifically, the five most dangerous driving behaviors and the sfpd's new data driven approach targeting enforcement on known dangerous streets in the intersections, which is moving in the right direction. so i'm here to call on the san francisco police department to first recommit to vision zero. and next, we're asking for the police department to have an annual vision zero plan with a focus on speeding drivers. wtxf is asking you to use your oversight leadership to push the sf police department to be leading to be a leading partner in ending tragedies on our street. from traffic violence. thank you all very much. the coffees are over ther.

good evening, commissioners. thank you for this opportunity to offer comment, my name is susan weisberg. i live in north beach, where i've lived for 37 years. during that time, walking has been and still is one of my main means of both transportation and recreation. but over the course of that time, i've become less comfortable walking around both my neighborhood and around the city. as a whole. it's not just because i'm older, although i'll admit it does take me a little longer to walk across the street now, but it's because traffic has become heavier, faster, and less law abiding vision zero had a goal of eliminating pedestrian deaths by 2024. as you've heard from elena. instead, they're increasing every day as i wait to cross the intersection of

broadway and columbus avenue, i see cars running the red light and speeding through the intersection. you have abundant evidence that speed kills, but i have never once seen any law enforcement of those violations. every day as i walk through my neighborhood, i experience cars not stopping at stop signs, going through intersections while pedestrians are in the crosswalk. i myself have barely escaped being hit more than once, but i have never once seen any law enforcement of those violations. i was once at an sfmta hearing when an officer from the traffic enforcement division of the police department said, i believe that there were eight traffic enforcement officers for the whole city. perhaps i've misremembered by a few, but there are over 400,000 cars in san francisco. what's wrong with this picture? i'm joining others

in asking the police department and this commission to step up in a bigger way on vision zero and to be a partner in finding solutions to reduce severe and fatal traffic crashes. thank yo. oh, good evening, commissioners, for those who don't know me, my name is j conner b ortega and i am president of team j conner. as always, i want to start by saying thank you to sfpd for the incredible work the men and women do to keep us all safe. truly, without them, the monsters would engulf and destroy our communities that we have worked so hard to build and preserve. now tonight, you all will be discussing the drones that sfpd has been using effectively to apprehend criminals. while i have been unable to attend these recent slew of police commission

meetings, i have been watching and i want to give you all the same message. i gave the land use committee supervisor, preston walton asked, why do we even bother having a board or commissions if we, the voters, are just going to pass laws ourselves? well, you all were confused by that as well. when we passed prop and here we are. let me answer that question by saying we the people charged you all with the job to keep a healthy, safe and environmentally friendly city and you all have not done that. now, i don't mind if we propositioned until the police commission disappears, but i would prefer if this commission remains to exist to make sfpd's job easier, i encourage all of you to follow as instructed. per our ballot measure, or there will be more propositions passed which, speaking of propositions, we do have one, and i've been allowed to say that we do have another ballot proposition that's being currently drafted, which i also have a hand to help. and more will be coming

soon after that. thank you. good evening. i'd like to use overhead. i'm here, not just to talk about my son at this moment, but we have a healing circle for mothers and fathers who have lost their children to homicide. and these are the things we do. i want to point out, i put a few of the, up there for you guys to, to, to look at and one of them is we go to court hearings and trials funerals. so i was at a visiting, i mean, supporting a mother at court last week and prior to going to court with her, i went up to see who talked to my investigator to see if he was there. and he wasn't there. so i followed calvin sanders down the court. i said, i'm going to support a mother, for in her trial in her court thing. and so i did. i stayed there for

some hours. and then after that, i, i finally left. but i got a call from my investigator. you can put it back on me from my investigator, the next day. and he said, miss brown, you called. i said, yes, i was just checking to make sure if you knew anything or if anything else is in my case. and then he said, i heard that you were in court. and what court? i said court was what? and then i said, oh, and he said, oh, are you are you affiliated with this, with this family? and i felt really triggered after that. so affiliation means i'm just there to support this mother. i'm not involved with the court hearings. i'm not involved. i felt like even though this court hearing had something to do with gang violence and two. but i wish he had said, are you supporting this mother with the healing circle? but i just felt triggered by saying i was affiliated with this family, and

that's the way i took it. maybe he didn't say it right, but i didn't even know he knew i was in court. i didn't know if candace calvin sanders told him, but i just felt investigated. but, i just i'm worried. i don't know what's going on. i just don't want to be triggered like that. i'm supporting a mother and a family. and there's no further public comment. next item, please. line item three. consent, calendar. receive and file action sfpd's live monitoring report. first quarter 2024 and 2023 sap department awards certification. eight a motion motion to receive and file second for any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item three consent calendar. please approach the podium. there's 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 young. yes. yes. commissioner jones is yes. commissioner. yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter robertson is. yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. line item four. adoption of minutes. action for the meetings of september 4th, september 11th and september 18th, 2024. can i get a motion? i get a second. second. thank you. if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item for the adoption of minutes, 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. mr. walker is. yes. commissioner benedicto. yes. commissioner benedicto is. yes. commissioner young. yes. yes. commissioner says yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter overstone is. yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. line item

five. chief's report. discussion. weekly crime trends and public safety concerns provide an overview of offenses, incidents, or events occurring in san francisco. having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events. the activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether the calendar for a future meeting. chief scott, thank you, sergeant youngblood, good evening, president elias. vice president carter, commission and executive director henderson and the public. i'll start this week's report with general crime trends. just overall, we're still at a 32% decrease in part one crimes. that's, just about a 13,000, decrease in crimes over this time or over this time. last year. property crime is 34% below where it was this time last year. and violent crime is 14% down just a couple of highlights from that, homicides are down 40%, 40 compared to 40 last year compared to 24 this year. car break ins are down 57%

16,586 this time last year, 7181 this year. and that's really driving a lot of our part one crime decrease is the reduction in property crime. total weapon sees year to date is 894, compared to 823 of those 894, 74 were ghost guns, compared to 117 ghost guns. this time last year. just a note with ghost guns. one of the manufacturers, polymer80, who made a lot of the ghost of manufacturers, a lot of the parts used in ghost guns, they were restrictions put on them a couple of weeks ago where those parts, at least many of them now have been deemed to be illegal. illegal. so hopefully that will have a positive impact on the guns out on the streets and hopefully a positive impact on reducing gun violence in terms of our cases and significant

incidents, there were no homicides to report for this past week. we had one non-fatal shooting, resulting in two victims being struck by gunfire. that was the 5500 block of mission and the ingleside district. this happened on september 28th at 2 p.m. two people or two subjects attempted to gain entry into an illegal gambling establishment. an argument broke out and a staff member at the door and the two suspects continued to argue at some point, a gun was brought out and gunfire was exchanged and two of the people sustained gunshot wounds. there was an arrest made in that particular incident. we had a significant arrest on robbery, armed robbery suspects. this incident occurred on september 22nd in the 300 block of bayshore boulevard in the bayview district. and this was an armed robbery radio call that just occurred. the victim stated he was on his electric scooter when an unknown suspects

approached surrounded him, stole his scooter. the victim attempted to flee from the suspects, but they followed him, demanded his property while brandishing firearms, and then took his scooter and fled. officers from the ingleside district, who heard the broadcast of the armed robbery and the description of the suspect, searched the area and located three suspects who matched the descriptions. the subjects were detained and two of them were in possession of concealed and loaded firearms, stolen property taken from the victim was also discovered during this. after the search was conducted and during the investigation, both of these two individuals were detained and later identified as the suspects that committed the robbery. a 16 year old was arrested for robbery and conspiracy, and the other person was 18 year old, 18 years old, and he was also arrested for robbery, conspiracy, possession of a firearm, as well as brandishing a firearm and carjacking that was associated with this incident. so really good heads up work by the ingleside

officers in that case, there was another significant arrest by the internet against crimes, crime, internet crimes against children unit, also known as icac. they investigate child pornography in april of 2024, the special victims unit, icac unit, obtained information that an adult male suspect from san francisco was in possession of and distributing child sexual assault material, commonly referred to as child pornograph. through the course of this investigation, the suspect was identified as a 56 year old man from san francisco. albinus venice. on september 12th, 2024, a joint operation was conducted by sfpd's icac unit, the fbi homeland security investigations and the 100 block of maynard street. a search warrant was served and venice was taken into custody without incident during the search warrant service. multiple electronic devices were seized and a forensic review of the devices located large quantities of child pornography.

suspect was booked on one count of distribution of child pornography. 311 of the penal code, one count of possession of child pornography. also 311 of the penal code with the enhancement of over 600 files that were found on the computer, these investigations are very complicated and just hats off to the collaboration between the federal agencies and the sfpd to take this person into custody. there was another arrest on february 11th. this was an assault with a deadly weapon on a peace officer. bayview officers. it happened on february 11th when bayview officers detailed to the stunt driving response unit were at a gas station at the 4200 block of mission street. they were towing a vehicle related to a different investigation when they they were surrounded by multiple individuals on dirt bikes. one of the dirt bikes and atvs began circling the gas pumps and driving recklessly. the suspect on the atv struck and nearly ran over an sfpd officer and

purposefully collided into a pedestrian. the suspect fled on a dirt bike driven by a different suspect, who left his atv at the scene. the pedestrian sustained non-life threatening injuries and was transported for treatment. the officer also sustained non-life threatening injuries during the investigation. the suspect was identified as a 31 year old san francisco resident and a warrant was issued for his arrest on august 29th. the suspect was located and placed under arrest without incident. he was booked on attempted murder charges and assault with a deadly weapon on a police officer, and for filing a false police report. and, to close this out, just a couple of things and updates, update on a question that commissioner benedicto asked. and this was related to the news article about the files of officers that were, i guess, their personnel files or their discipline files

were were sealed, and the question was whether we have any of those cases. we do not we don't have any of those types of cases. we don't feel discipline files of that nature. and we've done our research. so we have not been able to find any evidence that that is the case in san francisco. and when we hire people, we do a thorough background. we actually go to those departments if they are police officers and actually seek permission to review the files. so that we know of it has not impacted our department. but i just wanted to follow up on that, because you had asked us to look into that. a couple of other follow up, bilingual testing. this has been an ongoing conversation, we're happy to report that the city department of human resources has scheduled three days of language proficiency, proficiency testing for sfpd members for spanish, tagalog, chinese, mandarin, and cantonese

and russian. the dates are october 7th and october 11th, 17th, and 18th. members who can proficiently speak, read, and write these languages have been encouraged to become certified, so we're trying to up the language skills in our department, and hopefully our officers will take advantage of that. but this is open to both sworn and professional staff members. so we have three test dates now, update once we see how many members have taken advantage of this certification, upon certification, members will be able to interpret and translate based on their level of proficiency, and they will also receive bilingual compensation, compensation. take them out of time. out of time. but that is my report for today. and if you have any questions, i'm happy to answer them. oh, one other thing. the video on the vending we plan to release it today. i just got a text that there was one edit needed, so if it doesn't get out tonight, it'll get out tomorrow night. but we do plan to release it so

that's the update on that. when you say release it, what does that mean. just it'll be on your social media or social media will also notify the press that we're releasing it as well. can you provide the press copies or just let them know that it's on your website? we just let them know it's on the website and they and we'll usually send a link to the website and all that, but it's accessible to the press as well. okay, i think you also had a meeting with stakeholders regarding that incident. are they going to be notified as well of the release of the video? there's been communications we have not met yet. so but yeah, they will. the definitely the people that who have been in contact with me and also whatever other entity in san francisco and the sfpd, they will be notified as well. yeah. on the excuse me on that video, i know we discussed a little bit about sort of what format it would take or what what details it would include. did you happen to know what the media unit ended up doing with that? yeah. so the incident from the what was captured on body worn camera, the video itself is over

an hour long. a lot of that video. and we're going to release the entire video. but we have cut down to the actual incident itself up until the point where the person, the lady is put in the police car, and then there's a at least 30 minutes of just her in the back of the car. and officers, you know, doing that process. there's also some witness statements that happened in that video that we're going to release. but the reason that we will release the longer video, we had to redact some of the faces, and we just caught some of that today that weren't redacted on the longer video. but we'll release the shorter one today that shows basically in principle, everything that happened. the longer one shows everything, including, just officers sitting, talking to the woman when she was in the police car and trying to locate witnesses and that type of stuff. so and thank you for doing that follow up on that reporting about the officer records. i think it's good to hear that report. i think the one of the biggest concerns from

reading that reporting is that is for officers that we hire as laterals. and it seems like from who may have received these agreements from other jurisdictions, especially because the reporting indicated that those agreements seemed specifically crafted to sort of evade scrutiny from the hiring department, because it wouldn't even if you have access to all their records, it wouldn't be part of that. and they would be, in some cases, pretty restricted as to what they could answer. and i don't know if there's much that can be done without changes to the state law level, but i think it's worth looking in to see if there are ways we can counteract those agreements. attempts to counteract, and respond to that. but thank you for, for that first look. thank you. members of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item five, the chief's report. please approach the podium. all right, i'm back.

and i had a quick question concerning a course of videos and investigations. if i can have the overhead. so i was wondering if there was ever an investigation into the situation. that was a sitting police commissioner's wife and the commissioner himself. what appears to be messing with a residence's camera? now what's scary about this is we have a sitting police commissioner who is married to a public defender, which is enough to dismiss the commissioner for

conflict of interest is scoping out a resident's home. we english have a saying, and it's. there's fuckery afoot. i'd like to see an investigation as to why a sitting police commissioner and his public defender wife is scoping out and messing with the resident's camera. thank you. can you do a reminder as a reminder to the public? the public comment is going to be regarding the chief's report on line item five. i like to use the overhead and back again. i'm. i'm here to talk about my son, aubrey picasso, who was murdered august 14th, 2006. to this day, his case is unsolved. it is called a cold case, as i keep asking about, there's been $0 paid out in a decade for payment on

tipsters or people to come forth, i'm still looking for information for, the dpa and everyone to come together to, bring awareness to finding tipster and paying them more, paying them money to solve these cases. i'm sorry. i bring these because not only am i suffering just imagine how many mothers are suffering from their children laying dead like this. i have become immune to this now. but if i don't show you what i'm talking about, then you'll never know. no mother wants to do this. we need our cases solved. we definitely need our cases called. i do thank everyone for being available for me during my time of grief. you

can put it back on me during my time of grief. the chief and everyone and, max carter and calvin de benedicto, i thank you for acknowledging me sometime, because sometime i feel like i don't. no one's hearing me. and like i said in my video that, that i feel more heard this year than i ever out of the 18 years that i've been dealing with my son's murder. but i am definitely waiting for the street sign to be available to put up so that, do a legacy of my son, and to find out about ways to pay tipsters through the connection between dba and, the police commission, please. any member of the public has any information regarding the murder

of aubrey aberra kassa. you can call the anonymous 24 over seven tip line at (415) 575-4444. that is the end of public comment line item six dpa director's report discussion report on recent dpa activities and announcements commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. executive director henderson, chief. thank you. commissioner. i just i forgot to mention that this month is national hispanic heritage month, and it's also domestic violence awareness month. and they are, two very celebrated, very, good months for us because we'll have, celebrations of hispanic heritage within the department and all over the city. and then for domestic violence work month, we always want to lift that work up and make sure that our domestic violence survivors and their families are supported. so i just wanted to mention that i forgot to mention our report. so thank you. thank

you director. thank you, we currently have, 542 cases that have been opened this year. and 224 open investigations currently. right now, we've closed 635 cases so far this year. and mediated 14 cases. we have 18 cases whose investigations have gone on longer than nine months, and of those cases, 17 of them are tol, that leaves us with still pending final adjudication. 120 cases that have been sustained by the dpa that are pending with the chief, and 13 cases that have been sustained, that are pending with the police commission. we have the, in terms of complaints that have come into the office since the last time we met, the top allegations, the top allegation has been for, allegations of an

officer behaving or speaking inappropriately with a member of the public, we have one item in closed session tonight, and i will mention that for our audit, we are currently addressing the comments that have been given to us from the comptroller's office, and we are hosting or having an exit conference with sfpd regarding those results later on this month. currently here in the hearing room is ali schultheiss. deanna rosenstein and jermaine jones, in case anyone has questions that can be answered in the audience or issues that come up during tonight's hearing, for folks that have information or want to get in contact with our agency, we can be reached at sfgovtv.org/dpa, or you can contact us at (415) 241-7711.

that concludes my remarks. and i will retain and wait for comments as the agenda items as they're called. thank you sergeant, if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item six, please approach the podium. there's no public comment. line item seven 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 few items for my report. i wanted to join the chief in the recognition of national hispanic heritage month, as well as domestic violence awareness month, and add one more. october is also filipino american heritage month. there will be a celebration here at city hall, commemorating that as well, a few items for me, during the sfpd salesforce operations, i

got to meet one of the drones, and, and meet with the officers that were working on those. that was a very enlightening experience. and so thank you for that, i also we had a working group meeting for department general order 6.16 on sexual assault. so it's timely that we're talking about that during, domestic violence awareness month, that working group will meet again, tomorrow, commissioner janez and i have been meeting with community groups regarding dgo 7.01 and look forward to that being placed on the commission calendar. early next month. finally, i met with commander nicole jones of the traffic company. as part of our continued my continued role to liaise with them regarding the collaboration with mta, my fellow commissioners may recall this was in response to a news article about people whose cars were stolen getting tickets from mta. and so the collaboration there was to prevent that

happening in the future. progress continues to be made on that front, there was then a subsequent article about someone who waited, something like ten hours to get their car back. and so commander jones and i spoke about ways to reduce that as well, and so that collaboration continues to move forward. and so, thank you for allowing commander jones to work on that, chief. and that's all for my report. thank you, commissioner walker. thank you. a couple of things i've been working on, actually, that have been delayed a bit, i'd just like to bring up the commitment that we have to 30 by 30, to hire and promote women in the department, i just want to point out that our recent, list of those receiving valor. and i don't mean to discount this, but there are out of 16, there are no women, i think we have a lot of work to do in our department, and i am

committed to doing what we can to move that forward, the other thing is the update about patrol specials, which has also been put off, the issue of partnering with the private sector security is really one that needs to be addressed, and i'm hopeful that we can do it sooner rather than later. so thank you, sergeant. yes. go ahead, commissioner yanez. thank you very much, sergeant youngblood, thank you very much, president elias, i have a brief report, we've had our fourth session of the language access 5.20, community working groups. we made significant progress, as far as updating the draft of the dgo to incorporate, our language access ordinances, most current

revisions, which were approved by board of supervisors earlier this year, we had a lot of public comment in, in the last two sessions in that group. so i'm really, really, happy to see members of the community, contributing to put together the best product possible to ensure that, language access is at the forefront of our department's, you know, efforts so that we are both supporting victims and, investigations of crime, we've also as, commissioner benedicto mentioned, have continued to have dialog with community members around, the juvenile probation or the juvenile, dgo. and i did want to make sure that i reminded the group, one that i asked, chief scott whether we have an update on a presentation for the pre-booking diversion. i

know that before our recess, president elias had indicated that, she'd like to see a presentation. since we're already up to, it's been a year since we had our last meeting with our joint meeting with the juvenile probation commission around our pre diversion efforts, is there is there any information that you have on a timeline for such a presentation, chief? because i do want to make sure that our community partners who've been working on this, project will be available and can coordinate with us. so we don't have an agenda yet, commissioner, but where we are on it is the draft mou has been sent out to stakeholders, i think, including yourself, what we'd like to do is get agreement on that mou with the stakeholders and make sure we're all on the same page and moving in the same direction. and our hope is that when that presentation happens, that we are ready to go forward

with this program. so that's our hope. but the mou has been drafted. it's out there, waiting for input and review. and then we are scheduling a meeting to sit down with those stakeholders and yourself, hopefully to iron out any, any issues that might arise with this mou that we've drafted. perfect. thank you for that update. and i know that we do have a meeting scheduled to continue to, identify what needs to be in place for that program to proceed. i did want to calendar. i know that we've had two, quarters of the live monitoring reports, and i would love to get a better sense of, how in practice, this, program and the interface with community, owners of cameras have, has been, playing out. and if we could, during that presentation, whenever it gets

scheduled, also have the document that is being offered or is being shown to community members, because i remember before, the live monitoring was initiated, i requested a draft of the copy of the document that's being offered, that allows people to opt out. from the looks of the reports of the summaries that you provided, it seems that every request has been authorized, and i just like to get a better sense of what kind of dialog is happening with community members or store owners who are providing access to their cameras. and lastly, i do i would i know that, you know, there's been a second album, but last year, we there was a request and there had from what i understood on the department's end, there had been interest in putting together a presentation, to determine, you know, what could have been done differently, during last year's

bomb. i know that as a result of a potential, case that we may not necessarily be speaking about content, but i was hoping that what the presentation will focus on is tactics. right. because i know that considering the ongoing, developments around this particular activity, will continue to take place, and i would love to get a better sense of how the department will move forward to contain, that incident or that event from escalating. so, i don't believe that you, you know, have an update right now, but i still want to make sure that we devote some time to that, that is my report. thank you very much. thank you. thank you, commissioner yanez. sergeant brandy, member of the public, has any public comment regarding line item seven commission reports. please approach the podium. and there is no public

comment. line item eight presentation and discussion on sapd and dpa. sparks report second quarter 2024 discussion. i'll let you get up. good evening commissioners. my name is ahsha. i'm here to present the sparks report. q to get it up on the screen for you. first screen to the first leg. all right. so we're doing q2 again. this is just the data relating to policy from april, may and june of this year. former commissioner sparks sponsored resolution 2706, which requires quarterly reports from both our department and dpa to provide to police commission to provide

policy development awareness. so in quarter two, we're covering we gave you updates about 25 dgos and updates on 57 department notices. next slide please. i also want to give you some updates about the policies that are in q2. we have some updates from june 30th to date. as you know, the prop e related dgos were adopted by commission. so that's 501 use of force, 503 investigative detentions, 504 arrests by private persons, 505 emergency response and pursuit driving and 506 citation releas, there were dgos that were sent to commission for calendaring. that's dgo 301 department written directives, 310 series incident review board 704. safeguarding children of arrested persons 1011 body worn cameras. there are dgos that are in stage two development or actually moving out of stage two into the next phase. that's 316 release of police reports 610 missing persons, 612 arrests of persons of supervised release.

613 prejudice based incidents 809 media relations. 812 in-custody deaths 1102 secondary employment. and then there are dgos that are in post concurrent. so concurrence is the process where command staff and dpa get together and actually review and further comment on dgos, so 518 this is persons in custody and transportation. 701 policies and procedures for youth, and 906 vehicle tows. so these will be coming to commission very soon. you'll be seeing those. and next slide please. thank you. i want to give you a status update on the approved 2024 dgo list. so this was the list that was approved by president elias back in february. and this set the work plan for pd for the year, 302 terms and definitions has moved. public review 316 release of police reports is actually now in public review 607 dog complaints is in public review 613 prejudice based incidents

and 615 property processing are also in public review, so those are open for members of the department or members of the public to go see them on our website and provide comment in the portal. we take those comments and they do actually adjust the draft before we send it to command staff for concurrence. also. 1102 secondary employment and 610 missing persons. those are prepping for public review. so those should be up probably next week. and, just a quick 2024 working group update. actually, commissioner benedicto and commissioner yanez already provided this update, but dg oh 616 sexual assault investigations. their first meeting was held on the 17th of september. their next meeting is actually scheduled for tomorrow, based on the 120 business day. timeline of dg 0301, working group meetings are set to conclude on or before march of 2025. dg 0803 crowd control that began in 2023. so that also concluded that dg oh is agendized for tonight. i think it's an agenda item number ten.

and as mentioned by commissioner yanez, dg oh 520 language access services first meeting was held in july. they've had about five meetings so far and their next meeting is scheduled for october 22nd. and based on the 120 business day timeline for them, the working group meetings are set to conclude on or before january of 2025. next slide, i'll actually take questions after dpa. does their presentation, so i'll move out of the way. i, president elias, commissioners and chief happy san francisco summer, i submitted a memo to you guys that just kind of outlines the policy work that i did in quarter two, 2020 for, the back page has a list of the dgos i worked on, but i wanted to pull out three, sections that were of particular, emphasis for dpa. the first one was a policy review of dg 06.10. and if you

look to the pdf, that title is a hyperlink. so you can go to the memo and see that for yourself, we proposed 28 recommendations to the pending draft, and sfpd has taken several of those into consideration and added those to the draft, i'm excited. this is going to be coming to the commission soon because it was last updated in 1999. and we've been submitting recommendations on this since 2021. so looking forward to seeing this moving forward. i just want to thank stephanie wargo wilson from our office, who brought a very important missing persons case to my attention while i was working on this, and it kind of changed the direction of our policy recommendations. and then i also want to thank sandra wilkerson from our office, who reached out to chp, really dug deep on the emergency notification and tactical alert center, that's the group that handles amber alert, silver alerts. and just for everyone's

reference, amber alert was created the year after this memo was last updated, second dgo i wanted to point out was 5.05. i just wanted to thank the evoc team for having me for their training and taking me out to the evoc course, i was very impressed by the training they put together, really focusing on refreshing skills, clearing intersections, and i would encourage all the commissioners to reach out to evoc and, see what they're doing out there. and the last thing i wanted to mention is that through our casework, we file, policy failures occasionally when sfpd doesn't have policies that, create gaps. and in one of our cases, we found that sfpd was unable to account for written citations, the e citation system is trackable, and dpa can reach

out to sfpd legal to get citations. but for written citations, we found that they go straight to the superior court, and we had trouble tracking those down, so we proposed some solutions to improve citation records and cad and will be following up with those after the stop data audit is complete. thank you. mike pence, just for clarification, evoc is emergency vehicle operations course. i know you all knew that, but just to clarify, the second thing that i just wanted to raise, because we were alluding to it in i don't want to raise a whole nother big conversation about this with. but we've discussed it at previous meetings about the disagreement about when the dgos are due with undefined times, what i think would be

really helpful as part of these presentations specifically, like with the spark stuff and the policy stuff is we in the past we dpa in the past had been tracking all of these dates and making presentations about missed deadlines and all that other stuff. and the department was tracking all these things as well. what i think would probably be helpful for everyone is if the department just published their the stuff that i know the department keeps already as part of the consent calendar, so you guys could see that rather than having like a full report on all of that stuff and having to gauge those things as they come up or we miss a deadline, everyone can be informed regularly as we have our regular meetings with those things. and those are the calendars that include spark meetings, spark meetings, inter-departmental meetings, and internal meetings. i think that's a great idea that i would be suggesting, as you know, and i'll conclude with this, we've

already proposed with the commission to revise dgo 3.01, which sets deadlines about the start and timeline for the dgos. that would eliminate a lot of the ambiguity. i'm only raising it again, because i think these two things are solid steps that the commission could take based on some of these overviews of the policy approaches that would make a big difference in how efficiently we could get work done. one publishing that calendar as part of the consent calendar or presentation weekly when we meet. and then secondly, prioritizing or moving forward with the 3.01, consideration or passing it or moving forward on it, that's it. vice president carter overstone. yeah, one question for dpa in your report, my screen is now gone on sleep mode, you had this point about

inconsistent cad data. could you just say, a little bit more on that? yeah, so when we do stop data investigations, we follow the doj's audit process for stop data, they recommend looking to secondary sources. the secondary sources they listed are citations and cad data, so we were unable to find citations. so we looked to cad and if we're unable to find cad data then we're, we go into additional sources, but and so, so sorry, when you say citation, you mean like a paper ticket or. correct. okay. and then the first source that you're trying to back up with these secondary sources is the stuff that's sent to cal d.o.j. yes. the stop data. okay and so, so just to clarify, when you find a stop in the cal d.o.j. data and then when you go to see if that same stop exists

in cad or the paper ticket, what happens exactly? sometimes we find it and sometimes we don't. if we don't find it, then we have to find other sources to try to validate the stop data. and so okay, so then maybe this is a better question for chief scott or the traffic company. but from the officer's perspective, is there individual, you know, data entry. so like once they send it once they put it in the system. so it goes to cal d.o.j. do they have to do additional steps to then print out the paper ticket? i'm just i'm having i'm just curious about the nuts and bolts mechanics of how this doesn't happen, so they're separate. the citation is filled out when the officer is engaged in a stop. the stop data is filled out, through a separate app. and. but is it not right that sometimes cad data is used to then fill

out the cal d.o.j. data after the fact? i was once told this. i believe. go ahead. chief, cat, when you say cad data are you talking about the location of the stop and that type of thing? yes, but some of the data is the same data, but officers are required to, in certain format that they have to report to cal d.o.j, which is, identifiers are basically stripped out, and then our data is actually more there are more categories that they have to fill out for our stop data. but as far as the cad, it should be the location to stop. all that should be the same. so i mean, i think i understand your question, but it should be the same information. if the citation is written, if citation is not written, then of course they would go with the cad data. it should be the same information that they're reporting to cad. let's say they

stopped the person and there's no citation, but it's a detention with the search and all that, that information should be synonymous with what's in the cad for the most part. and do you have a sense for how widespread this is in terms of when you when you you have a stop in the cal d.o.j. you know, sdcs data, but not a ticket or, and, or cad. so that's not something i've looked into. i would have to defer that to someone else. sorry. will this be the sub included in the long awaited, audit on stop data that director henderson has advised us is coming soon or not? this is a different issue, i'm not sure if this addresses it, but it should be out soon. okay. yeah, i have the draft. i'm still going through it. i can't answer that yet, but i will be able to answer it shortly, it's like i said, it's in draft form.

now, i know a lot of these issues are addressed. i don't know if that specific issue is included or not, but i'm sure i could get the answer. thanks. that's helpful. and then chief, the department's own internal department notices requires it to periodically audit its own stop data. this was not discovered. i take it in the department's audits, which was this? are you talking about this, dpa just raised the issue of not being able to of having a stop in the cal d.o.j. data that does not turn up, and there's no matching paper ticket or cad data that corresponds with the stop. so i assume sfpd never discovered that this was an issue in its own internal, audits, i'm not sure that that's the case, but if, i would like to get back to you on it. so maybe you discovered it, but you never let us know. no, i'm not sure. not that's the case. so i need to talk to dpa. and i know

some of these issues were raised when this whole audit came up, so i'm not sure exactly what all we found, but. well, one of the reasons we have what prompted the audit was that you weren't auditing your data as required by your own internal department. notice that's what and a newspaper had to inform us that this was an issue. that's what prompted the audit, if i recall. right. yeah. understood. you asked me a question that i'm trying to answer. i need to get back to you with that information. okay. much appreciated. just one other. oh please, you asked if there was a record of the stops. there is. it's in paper form, and it's at the superior court in the traffic division. but the traffic court doesn't have the ability to search tickets in a way that we can search them. they can't search by officer name. they can't search by date. they can only search by, citation number or driver's name. gotcha just one other question. it may be, for dpa and or the department. what is the

status of 1.061.07? i believe 1.06107, so that was put in a blue folder to go to the chief. and then when we did a quick review of it, as it was at the chief's office, when you read the quran, it says there's a combination of 106 and 107. we couldn't find a reference to 107in the document. so it just was a rewrite of 106, and there was no reference to 107. so the chief has asked us to take that document and ensure that we capture what was in 107, so we can combine the two instead of say that we've combined it and only has 106 content. so i'm so deeply confused by this answer. i had taken our prior we've this these twin egos have been the

subject of several prior updates at sparks reports. going back several quarters now, and i had always thought that they were continuing to be two separate dps dgos that were being revised on a parallel track, but now you're saying that's not right. they're being combined and revised. is that right? so this was one of the dgos that we inherited from you're right. it was like a 2021 or 2022 revision. and all of the documentation that tracks the development phases shows that it was a combination, that the goal was to combine 106 and 107 into one and then rescind either 106 or 107. so we could just have one go. all right. but when we were taking it to the kind of the last point, we couldn't find any references to 107. so there were it was an update of 106, essentially, and not 107. so if we were to combine the two, we do need to bring in 107. so we're still. so you're saying we went through the whole revision process and just totally ignored the content of 107, even though we said at the outset we were

going to combine 107 and one, so pd had not been established at the point where 106 and 107 was being worked on. we had it towards the tail end in just sort of after i think concurrence had even concluded before we had it at blue folder, and we were trying to get everything in order with the 2024 list. that was one that carried forward. so yes, the way it looks is that all of the notes, when we were trying to catch up on the development phase, said it was a combination, that there was some confusion along the way and the people who were actually revising it were just not under the impression that it was being combined. i'm just i can't speak for the people that were dealing with it. i can only speak for what our team saw and did. labor relations finish its review? they haven't had the review yet. i'm just looking at my notes or what was said. february 2024 sparks incorporated post concurrence edits and chief scott's edits into dgo and being reviewed by labor relations did that. so that review, they might

have had it on the blue folder on the blue folder, which is a physical blue folder that goes through labor relations, is on it. so i suppose that if it went to the chief, then yes, it would have had and weren't 301. does it provide for post concurrence review by labor relations? i'm sorry, where in dgo 3.01 does it provide for post concurrence review by labor relations? it doesn't specifically say who is on the blue folder. it doesn't. in three four it, so why are we doing something that's outside of what 3.1 contemplates a process that has been going on for a very long time to have a physical review of it by the sgm, by the deputy chief, the executive sponsor. none of that is captured in 301. you usually come in here and say, we can't do anything that's not on the face of the text. so this is a new this is a new thing. i haven't heard this before. now we had a process in place, know that you you generally say that if it's not clearly stated on the face of deago 3.01, we

cannot do it as part of the revision process. so i'm a little confused because review by labor relations post concurrence. there's no contemplation of anyone. there's also no note of the folder at all. blue folder is a process that is just a physical folder that has to go through this approval process to get to the chief, so that the chief can then tell us that it's okay to package for digital package for commission. so 301 is never captured. the blue folder, which has been a process that's been in place for a while. it doesn't specify the folder colors that have to be implemented i guess. so then just bottom line where are we on this? we are still trying to incorporate the 107 part into the dgo, so we have to capture the command staff, not the command staff, but the captain and command that was never put into 106. so the version we have only speaks to lieutenants and i believe captains. it doesn't capture the other side of like the deputy chief of the bureau, which is 107. and just last question,

chief. do you want to say anything about this? i guess i just a little bit difficult to understand. we set out saying we're going to combine. we're going to revise and combine 106, 107. okay, great. and then we're several years into the process. it makes it through all of the steps, all the way to your desk for like final last flyspeck before it comes to the commission. and that's the first time we realize, oh, none of 1.07 is incorporated in this document. so we have to start all over. i take it that's what i'm hearing, but i'm just i'm just very confused how that could happen. well yeah, we that's a mistake that we have to own. 107 was supposed to be incorporated. and before this went forward, it's like where's 107? it's supposed to be combined. it wasn't. so we had to reset, and just just a note on if i may, on the labor relations piece of this, you know, labor relations sits in the labor direct labor relations

director. excuse me, has always been in the concurrence meetings, but what we have found is just much smoother to have a final review to make sure we're not missing anything that's obvious that we can it still has to go to meet and confer in most cases, not in all, but in most cases. but it is a step that we believe adds just smooths out the process to have, director preston look at these things before they get to me. so even though that was happening, we have now included that as one of the steps of review. it hasn't slowed anything up. but just to answer your question about why we're doing that, great. thank you. that's that's all i've got. thank you, mr. yanez. thank you. president, just a couple of questions. since we're on the topic of 301, just for the public's information, i'm just going to go over some of the

procedures, the way they're written out, you know, section b of 301 says joe drafts you know, stage one draft. the initial draft developed in stage one, approved by the executive sponsor, developed in advance of the community working groups. and we go into the working group draft where, feedback is captured and then incorporated into another draft of the dgo. and then we go into stage two draft post concurrence, is the next section. and it comes to the commission, on page seven, step number seven, it says the submission to the police commission. requires the digital package submission to include the following one clean version of the revised dgo and one red line version of the dgo, which is not required for new dgos. is

it? in my experience, i've been a part of a few groups and normally we. i brought this up to the chief a few weeks back. normally we start with the stages, authorize practice dgo, as our starting point. whenever we're revising a draft, when we enter into stage, what was that? two of the, digital draft, the community working group. are we expected to see the red line version at that point, if there had been anything that was, edited in the stage one draft that was presented to the work groups. so the way i'm hearing the question is if the stage one

draft goes to the working group, is there a requirement to show the working group a red line? is that the question? right there's not a requirement to show them. it's a stage one draft that will be further revised by the working group. so what we typically do just in practice is provide the working group with the stage one clean version and then red line throughout the process so that the working group can see the progress of the draft. specific to the work that they are doing. and then it goes to the next phase. but typically the red line is really only for commissioners to understand members of the public and the bargaining units to understand what is changed between the effective policy that they're working under and the proposal. so when it's at the working group, it's still in a development phase. and can change. but really, once we get to the decision makers to adopt, they should really understand what is changing between what

officers are doing under the current policy and what we're proposing to change. that's the importance of the red line. are there instances where we don't start from the previous commission and department authorized to go document? and if so, what would determine or who determines that starting point? i'm sorry, i'm not sure i understand the question. so if we have a starting point, stage one draft that is introduced that has had some substantive, steps from the active dgo removed, who makes the decision to provide that information to the working group that is going to be building up off of that document. if there is no red

line, provided sure. that could be requested by the working group, it could be provided through the at the second meeting. typically what we do is we have the sgm or the executive sponsor come to either the first or second meeting and describe the substantive changes to the working group so they understand, instead of just showing you a document, but can certainly be provided via request. but when you look through 301, stage one and the transition from stage one to stage two, or the transition from stage one to stage two, working group is not necessarily required, but it can certainly be provided provided. great. i would love for you to provide us with the red line version of dg 0520, because when i asked this question, it was, during the working group, it was stated to me that that information was solely being captured in the grid and that as long as it's reflected in the grid, that it should suffice for the purposes

of building a new or incorporating new instructions into that policy, i feel that it's very important for working group members to, not necessarily receive a justification for why, if something was removed from a previous draft, i mean, that is something that we should be discussing, but at a minimum, i think and this is pointed out by dpa in the existing process, you know, at minimum at some point after having requested that document in those work groups, i would have hoped that i'd receive that document by now. i've asked for it a number of times. i still don't have an actual red line version of the whole document, and so i'm just i'm hoping that we can get that to us and to the working group before, by the before the beginning of the i believe that has been provided to the working

group. and is it posted on the website when you go to our website under your, sfpd policies and then working groups, there is a section for 5 to 0 working group and that all of our documents are posted under that section. and the red lines, the initial red line on any subsequent red line has been posted and provided also via email to all of the working group members. well, i am telling you that i do not have it. it has not been provided to us. there is no red line version. we can you please provide that to commissioner? yes. tomorrow. excuse me. thank you. tomorrow. tomorrow yes, absolutely. for that report. and then also, i don't know who the executive sponsor of the working group is. if you can also cc them so that they can distribute to the working group, certainly. thank you. any other questions? no more questions. that was a thank you, president. thank you. as mr. steeves, for any member

of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, the sparks report, please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item nine presentation of sfpd's drone program and compliance with ab 481. at the request of the commission. discussion tiktok. thank you. i had to go home and do something and come right back. i found out. i don't like staying in one. good evening, president elias. vice president carter oberstein, commissioners executive director henderson and chief scott. my name is cara lacey. i am the director of constitutional policing for the san francisco police department. and it is my honor and pleasure to be here to talk to you about assembly bill

41. our compliance with it, our procurement and deployment of drones. thanks, al. so i just want to start by saying, the san francisco police department is well aware of assembly bill 41, which was signed into law in 2021 by governor gavin newsom and became effective. oh, sorry. became effective in january 1st of 2022. sfpd is aware of the requirements under assembly bill 481, including the requirement that we have policies, that there's transparency in the process and the annual report requirements for military equipment. sfpd provided an initial use policy as it relates to, military equipment. back in 2022. that policy did not include the use of drones, as at that time, sfpd did not have any drones as it relates to

proposition e. in march of 2024, voters approved proposition e, which allowed and authorized the san francisco police department to use drones. in two separate ways one in lieu of vehicle pursuits and secondly, to assist with active criminal investigations. prop e also went on to set forth limitations and requirements that sfpd comply with not only the law, but all city policies that protect privacy and civil liberties. as it relates to our consultation with the city attorney's office regarding prop e and the implementation of prop e that began before or when prop e was first placed on the ballot. prop e, as this commission knows, impacted not only department policy, but technology,

including the use of drones and the department sought and consulted with the city attorney's office as it relates to implementation should prop e pass. so we did that in advance of prop e and the actual vote. once prop e passed, we continued to consult with the city attorney's office as it related to the procurement and implementation of drones, amongst other things. this commission has heard presentations on our drone program, but just to highlight some relevant dates for the commission, the department acquired six drones at the beginning of may as part of a pilot program, and we used that pilot program and continue to do so to find the drones that we felt were best suitable for the department to look at funding and develop what we thought would be our best drone program. moving forward. once we were

able to start working with drones, our first mission, as is publicly disclosed on our website, was on may 16th, 2024. we did two things following that procurement and deployment of drones. we submitted a funding request to the board of supervisors through the budget and then simultaneously submitted a policy to the board of supervisors for approval, those two things were done simultaneously. so in june, on june 4th, 2024, the board of supervisors placed the drone policy on a 30 day hold, allowing for public comment, and sent it to rules committee. it was calendared and heard first at the rules committee on september 9th, 2024. it received a positive recommendation, went to the full board and the full board fully approved the drone policy on september 24th. under the policy, the department has requested and received

authorization to acquire 22 additional drones. so this is basically a timeline to highlight, both the actions that we took as well as some other actions by various other parties. like i said, on march fifth, that was the election where prop e was passed. before that date and after the department consulted with the city attorney's office on the impacts of prop e, including the use, the procurement and deployment of drones, on april 2nd, the election results were certified on april 12th. prop e went into effect again. we continue to consult with the city attorney's office. we procured drones, our first drones. on may 1st. we went through the city budget process. the office of contract administration, and the tech marketplace in order to procure

those drones, on june 4th, as i stated, we introduced a board of supervisors, policy, an ordinance under ab 41. that was sent to rules committee in july. they were able to finally calendar it and hear it in september, and like i said, it received a positive recommendation, went to the full board. and just a few days ago, on september 24th, the board of supervisors approved it with a 9 to 2 vote. and we anticipate that it will be enacted on october 4th. so that is the timeline as it relates to, the department's deployment and procurement of drones. i am happy to answer any questions. i anticipate there might be a few. thank you, president elias. thank you for the presentation. so generally, ab 481 says if you

want to buy military equipment, you've got to put it in your military equipment use report and include a bunch of information and then get it approved from the board before you purchase it. but in this case, the drones were purchased before board approval. so. so why is that consistent with 481? so i will say that, well, let me just say i said this. was it consistent with 481, the purchase of the drones or were we was the purchase did that violate state law? no. the san francisco police department's position is that, we acted consistent with the law. we are aware of it. and that we did not violate the law in any way. and so then just back to my question. 481 just says, if you want to buy a new military equipment, that's fine. you got to put it in the military use report. you got to post it on

your website for 30 days. you have to have a public meeting, and then you have to go to the board and they have to review it, and they have to vote on it and approve it. and you may not purchase the new military equipment until board approval. here i'm looking at your timeline. i think we all agree you purchased it before board approval. board approval hasn't happened yet. so why is that? why doesn't that violate 481 sure. so like i said, the police department is well aware of what, 4081 requires. we also are aware of the authorization that was provided to us in proposition e. the san francisco police department sought legal advice from the city attorney's office as it relates to that issue, and the san francisco police department acted upon the advice of the city attorney's office every step of the way in our procurement and deployment of drones. so i understand you got attorney advice, but i'm asking a different question. i'm asking why. so ab 41 is not particularly long. it's very

straightforward. you cannot buy new military equipment until there's a vote of the board. there was not a vote of the board before you purchased the new military equipment. why doesn't that? seems like that would be an obvious violation. so why is it why is it not a violation? so what has previously been stated at the board of supervisors is that voters approved sfpd's use procurement and use of drones through proposition e, including for the purposes of 41. and when questions arose regarding the technical compliance with 41, it was advised that we seek an ordinance. and we did that. all right. so now i take it your answer is prop e supplanted the board's role in in terms of approval under 41. so 41 says the board of supervisors need to approve. but you're saying for

this just this one year, the voters passing prop e constant, constant. they stood in the in the shoes of the board for that year. so we're all good. that's that's your position. that's the position that has been stated both by the department and the city attorney's office. okay. so let me just ask a few questions then i'm glad we could clarify. so the position is prop approval is constitutes board approval under 41. so let me just, say okay. so here's what prop i sorry what ab 41 says you've got to do. this is government code 70 7181. so law enforcement agency has to obtain approval. this is before you buy anything one from the governing body, which is defined as the board of supervisors. two by an ordinanc, three at a regular meeting of

the board of supervisors, cannot be a special meeting, must be a regular meeting, and that meeting must be held pursuant either to the bagley-keene open meeting act or the brown act. property doesn't satisfy any of the requirements set forth in state law for what needs to happen for approval. so how could property possibly suffice to satisfy the requirements of 481? it doesn't meet anything set out that 41 requires. like i said, the police department is well aware of the language of ab 41. but no, but but i'm asking you. you just you just. no, i she's not answering. that's the problem, commissioner. you'll have. i see your name in the queue and you'll have your opportunity. that is not an answer. you stood here and you said prop e was sufficient. under 481, the voters could stand in the place of the board. i just read you five of the requirements that need to happen

at the meeting where the military use policy is approved, prop e satisfies exactly none of them. so how is your position consistent with state law? our position is protected under attorney client privilege. like i said, no, your communications. i'm sorry. your communications with counsel are privileged. your position is not privileged. the public has a right to know why the department's actions are not illegal. because they sure look flagrantly illegal. so your position is not privileged. your your discussions about legal strategy certainly are. but that's not what i'm asking about right now. our position includes legal advice that we obtain. no, your position does not include legal advice. your position was informed, perhaps by legal advice, but that's not your position. you stated your position. you said prop e was was enough and now i'm asking you how that could be true. when property doesn't satisfy a single of the many requirements

set out in 41, that's the question. and is your answer. you will not answer. then we can move on. that's your answer. no answer. okay. is that we sought advice from the legal, from the city attorney's office, and we acted upon that advice. and our position is that advice. okay, so here's some other and should okay, i understand i understand you also. i want to make sure i don't take up too much of my colleague's time. and i've already heard that answer. so let me ask you something else. so we talked about the requirements set forth in ab 481 about what needs to happen at the meeting when approval takes place. property satisfies none of them. but the other thing it does is it sets out very detailed requirements for what has to be in the required military use policy. so here's a few things that are required to be in the policy that you can search. all you like. you will not find any of them in prop e. so the quantity of the new military equipment sought

expected lifespan product descriptions from the manufacturer of the military equipment, the fiscal impact of each type of military equipment, including initial costs of obtaining equipment and estimated annual cost. the training, including any course required by the post that must be completed before any officer is allowed to use each specific type of military equipment for a law enforcement agencies, the procedures by which members of the public may register complaints. i could go on and on. so this is another requirement of 481. even if you were right, which you aren't, that the public could stand in the shoes of the board, as we've already shown, prop e didn't provide any of the information that the public would have needed. so what's your position on that? not not whether you sought advice about your position, but if you have a position, what is it? to the extent there were questions about technical compliance with ab 41, we sought a policy that

was approved by the board of supervisors. that is going to be enacted on october 4th, but that's not contains all of that. but that's not but there's no provision for retroactive approval. the whole point of 481 is you're not allowed to buy new military equipment before approval. it requires approval, public hearing, public notice you can't buy and then ask for sign off later. that turns the whole law on its head. so i take it you have no answer to that either. chief, let me just ask you this position that we've just heard your department take. i think the nicest way i could describe it is it is deeply unserious. and it's clear that what happened here, i don't know what happened here, but if there was a mistake made and we went ahead and bought drones when we thought maybe we could have, and it turns out that we couldn't in

retrospect, then i think that you owe the public an honest response on that, because what we're hearing now is just not serious. your purchase of drones violated the law, and i think the public deserves an honest accounting of what happened. what we've heard is a really unserious legal position and a refusal to answer even the most basic question. so, commissioner, there was no unserious or will to buy drones and intentionally violate the law. we sought advice from the city attorney. it's very clear that you don't agree with the opinion that we got from the city attorney, but my recommendation to you is to have that legal argument with the city attorney, because my job is to ask our counsel for legal advice. and that's what i did. so if you don't agree with that advice, you have a right to do

that. but i'm not a lawyer. that's why i call on lawyers to ask those questions. and for you to question me on or her. she's a lawyer, but we got our advice from the city attorney, so i don't know what to tell you other than we and you stand by that. it's. you asked me a question. please let me finish. other than we made an honest effort to get this drone program off the ground based on legal advice. and if you don't agree with that advice, you have a right to do that. i don't know what the advice is. i just know what i'm hearing today. the city attorney, because this is privileged information that we're not going to disclose, of course, and that's not why i didn't ask about it. so let me ask you a different question. given what you not understand, you sought advice of counsel at the time or prior to it sounds like the purchases, given everything you know now, do you still believe that your purchase of drones was lawful? yes. i do okay. and have there been other times where you've sought advice

of counsel and you've done something and the department has taken action that you that you later thought was unlawful? because just because you get legal advice doesn't mean before you do something, doesn't mean that it's lawful, right? if it's determined to be unlawful, then by a court or by some legal process, yes. but for because it's in a news article, because you don't agree is not a determination. i don't agree. it's a refusal to provide even the most serious. there's just no attempt to provide a serious answer. this isn't you're saying i keep saying i disagree with legal advice. i'm not. that's not what i'm saying, because i wasn't privy to the legal advice. you're asking me a question and i've answered it. if you don't think that is a serious answer, that's a conversation you should have with the legal counsel of this city. we took advice. we think it's legal. we think it was advice that we had every right to follow. and that's what we did. we also we also presented

that policy to the board. and you read the law. i don't need to hear it again, but i don't think we did anything illegal. we did everything that we were supposed to do, and we got the advice and we followed that advice to get this drone program started. we have a policy that in three days will be up and running, that the board has approved. so, i mean, you're having an argument with me based on the advice that i saw that argument. i think there is an argument with the people that the question has been answered. i'm not having a debate about the advice that you sought. i'm we're having a debate about a refusal to answer basic questions that show that the position that's currently been being taken by your department cannot possibly be true, and you don't have an answer for why that's what we're talking about. but let's just move on. is your legal hold on. no no no no, wait a minute. that wasn't a question. you asked me a question and now you're cutting me off. is your legal opinion okay? it's your legal opinion. that doesn't mean that it's right either. that means. but you haven't provided a reason

why it's not right. and that's the point. here is a refusal to answer questions. and let me just clarify. the recommendation to you is to talk to the lawyers. okay. and let me just clarify this, and i'm going to take you up on that advice. chief deputy city attorney cabrera, is it currently the position of the city attorney's office that the purchase of the drones was lawful? deputy city attorney alicia cabrera yes, the purchase of the drones under property was lawful. and do you have any response to any of the questions that i asked the department in terms of how it seems that property could not possibly for maybe a dozen reasons, satisfy the requirements of prop 41? i mean, ab 41, or is that all privileged information? the advice that we gave to the department is privileged. of course, the advice. but i'm asking, is there an answer you can give publicly to any of the questions i asked that the department refused to answer? i will not provide legal advice publicly, so no. okay. thank you. that's everything for me. commissioner walker. thank

you, it's my understanding that prop e allowed for pilot programs so that these kind of programs could be tested out before they were approved, and that process went forward as approved by the city attorney. is that correct? yes. that's a part of prop e. yeah. and that was voted on by the voters of san francisco. yes. put into effect. yes. and so even though some of our commissioners may have not supported it and not agreed with it, that is what the voters approved. correct. that is correct. thank you. judge clegg, i just want to go simply just for you to just tell me simply here you all went out and you purchased these drones, correct? that is correct. at the time you purchased these drones, there's a statute, state law says here's the process you should follow. is that correct? that is correct. and so what you did was you went back to the city attorney. you indicated to them you didn't follow the state

law. what should we do? are we were we okay to practice to purchase these drones? would that be correct? yeah no. so we went to the city attorney's office with regards to prop e, understanding 41, it wasn't that we weren't following one or the other. we went to the city attorney's office with prop e and with ab 41 and sought legal advice as to the steps that we could take. so what you ask is we have our proposition here, and here's the state law. mr. city attorney and your advisors, do we follow the law under the proposition? is that correct? that's correct. and then the city attorney says you follow the law under our city proposition, you can purchase the drones. is that what you did? we received their advice. yes. and then so you subsequently purchased the drones. you go with the drones, you go to go to the authority, the authorizing authority, our our supervisors. they hear this information, they say, yeah, this is good. you can purchase the drones. so we purchased the drones originally with funding.

yes. we then sought additional funding and the policy, which was approved by the board that confirmed the sale, confirmed that you could go ahead and do what you did. that's correct. you did it under the authority of the lawyers telling you what you could do, and the board of supervisors saying it was okay to do that. that is correct. you personally, one way or the other, you're not a lawyer to make that advice to the agency because you work for the agency. that's why you sought outside counsel. i am an attorney. yes, i get that. but you're not the attorney that says situation. yes, we sought counsel from the city attorney's office. and that's what you did? yes. so subsequently, to doing this purchase also subsequently to going to the board. has anyone outside anyone from our community, anyone who's a citizen here or any agency, anything anyone come and said, we are asking you to stop these purchases or set aside the purchases and or we're filing a lawsuit. have you heard any of that? i we have not been as far as i know, we've not been served with the lawsuit. so no one has said that to you. who would come in to a court and say, i want

this sale rescinded or this purchase rescinded, that would be correct. all right. and so and then you talked to mr. chiu, and so mr. chiu and his office, his people said they take this very seriously as it relates to what was happening. and their position was legal. and we advise you this is what you do and that's what you did. that's correct. all right. the next thing is if somebody wants to stop it or come back and rescind it, i guess somebody from the community or maybe one of our people here can go out and file that lawsuit and have it set aside. all right. nothing that could be an option. for you? no. i'm done. thank you. thank you, thank you very much. there. president elias, i just have a question, is there a differential between commercial grade drones and military grade drones? so all all drones fall under the military equipment requirements? under state law. do you know of any other police department in california using drones? yes, there are countless

others. so i see that, chula vista santa monica is using it. so i guess ab 481 would apply to them as well. that is correct. right. so would it be safe to say that they're in violation if, commissioner carter say it is illegal or, i guess, violation of the ab 481? right. that that would be a violation of all these police department. i think he's saying the way that they went about it, the timeline is what made it illegal, not the actual bill itself, because presumably those other counties followed the requirements laid out in the ab four and don't have prop e. yeah. and on top of that, we have property. okay. thank you very much. thank you. benedicto thank you very much. president elias, i don't want to repeat any of the questions that

some of my fellow commissioners have already asked. so i just have a couple of questions. i think i'll start by following up on something. commissioner yee had said, i know we're aware of many departments that use drones. are you aware and drones would qualify as military equipment under ab 481 for all of those departments as well? are you aware of any of those departments using a similar interpretation to not go through the formalized process of ab 481 and their procurement of drones? i can't say i'm familiar one way or another. i just don't know. okay so not aware one way or another. i think we've all particularly on this read prop e, in the text of property itself or you have any language where it states that it is the equivalent of standing in the shoes of an ordinary meeting of the board of supervisors for the purpose of ab 481. i am i am not aware of that. anything along those lines specifically within property. okay. so to your recollection, does not include language that explicitly says

that the property would stand in the shoes of the voters for one year? i believe that property is silent on ab 481. okay, so similarly you're not aware of anything on prop e that would have the passage of prop e stand in for the policy details that the vice president said under ab 481. correct. it's silent on that as well. there are some. there is some language within prop e regarding restrictions on the department. and, requirements to report out in certain circumstances, use of, of drones. but is the list that vice president carter overstone read that comes directly out of ab 41? is that in prop e? no. okay. we also we discussed ab 41 at this commission before specifically with respect to we've had disagreements here as to whether some of the departments for other equipment meets the requirement of public meetings, are you aware of

anything in prop e that states that the passage of prop e by voters would stand in for the public meeting requirement of ab 41? again, i'm not aware of anything within prop e as far as i know, prop e does not mention ab 41. okay. i'd like to look sort of forward facing and address something that commissioner walker mentioned about properly authorizing pilot programs. is that the department's position, that pilot programs under prop e are exempt from ab 41? categorically. i haven't considered that. and to the extent that the department would consider that in the future, i can tell you we would seek the advice of the city attorney's office. so within within the one year, if the department chose to purchase an armored vehicle, you know, a very aggressive piece of military equipment as a pilot program, it was purchasing one. it's your position that it's not clear as to whether or not that would have to go through the requirements of ab 41, so long

as it was classified as a pilot program. like i said, i'm not sure if i understand the question, but i will just say that obviously prop e specifically called out drones in a very specific way. it doesn't call out any other type of military equipment. we're aware of what prop e says, and we're aware of what ab 41 says. and again, like to the extent that there were any questions along those lines, i'm confident we would go to the city attorney's office to clarify any anything along those lines. okay. chief, i just have one question. if. why did the department feel it needed to seek a retroactive ordinance if it felt that everything was done in compliance? as with with ab 41. so the budget once we as director lacey said once we purchase the initial drones with the expansion or potential expansion of the program, we had

to go seek this for the budget. so that that policy was submitted, i believe, on june 4th. it's in the timeline. i believe that date was june 4th. this was the same time we were asking for 22 additional drones. so we felt that we would go ahead and do the policy or submit the policy to the board. so that conversation can be had with the budget conversation. it was specific with all the things in prop in 41, in terms of the type of equipment, the number of drones that we were seeking to expand to. so that was the reason is that it went hand in hand with now a pretty significant financial ask in terms of expansion of the program. and we figured that the board would want to know exactly what we were going to do. and so that policy was submitted in conjunction with the budgetary, the budgetary process, basically, the budget was down the road a little bit, but it was right around the time we were having all the budget discussions. okay without asking you, obviously, to reveal any legal advice you see from the city attorney that it's been

publicly stated that the position has been that prop e authorized a pilot program for up to one year. so it's the department's position that on march 5th of 2025, any drones purchased after that would be subject to the to the full process. ab 41 is that ask that question as well for any drones purchased or added to the department starting in march fifth, 2025. starting in next march, you would not repeat this process, correct? no. now that we have a policy that has been approved by the board, if we expand, if we modify what's been asked for, we have to go back and ask for an amendment or additional board approval for anything additional that we would ask for. so and that's a very real possibility. but, no, we the policy now is at the board. so anything additional additionally that would be sought would go through the same process. and commissioner drones will be added to the annual report under 41. all right. thank you. that's all my

questions. just two additional questions for me. are you aware that ab 41 has a preemption provision that states that it applies to all cities, including charter cities and anything in local law that is inconsistent with ab 41 is preempted such that even if prop e were to provide a new pathway for approval of military equipment, it would not. it would be preempted under state law. are you aware of that? i'm aware of the language that is contained within ab 41. i think that that's not what was just stated, but i'm aware of the oh, maybe i need to refresh your recollection. then the legislature finds and declares that in ensuring adequate oversight of the acquisition and use of military equipment is a matter of statewide concern rather than a municipal affair, as that term is used in the constitution. and this is the this is the key language.

therefore, this chapter applies to all cities, including charte, including charter cities, and shall supersede any inconsistent provisions in the charter of any city, county, or city and count. so, vice president okay, i believe that is the last question. language is there any published opinion from a court of this state stating that the voters can stand in the shoes of the board of supervisors for purposes of ab 481? yes or no? you know, i would defer to the city attorney's office on that. so you don't know if there's even one case that would support that would say that you can do what you did in this case, that the that the voters can act as the board. you don't know. so again, the police department sought legal advice from the city attorney's office and received that legal advice. but

is it? i just want an answer. is it? yes no or i don't know, don't know, i don't know or okay. thank you. chief. just why didn't you wait so that you didn't have the appearance of impropriety? why commissioner. it's really. i mean, it's the same answer we go to the seek legal advice, and if that legal advice is given, then we make a decision based on that advice. as far as the appearance of impropriety, i mean, there is i mean, i don't know what to say. we sought legal advice. we don't believe that we violated the law. and that's where we are. we heard, we heard. okay. sergeant for any member of the public that has, excuse me, for any member of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item nine, please

approach the podium. it's funny because i was at that board meeting when supervisor walton and preston was asking this very question, which is can the voters act in place of the board? and it was discovered that we can because we voted the board and we vote every single proposition, every single election year. when we do pass it. and there was a point that was brought up discussing about the voters and the public opinion, and i look at it and says, prop e passed by 54%, which is 120,529. so i get the impression that we did have our conversation when we said it was a good idea. so as far as i'm concerned, the public has decided. and thank you, scott, for all that you guys do at sfpd. and that's that. i mean, unless of course, we're just going to ban voters from being able to partake in what our city

council and commissions do, because if we wanted to, like i said, we can open up a proposition of a charter reform and just abolish the police commission itself. so, yeah, we do as the voters do, have the authority. so thank you. and there's no further public comment. line item ten discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 3.10 serious incident review board 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 police commission, director henderson, chief scott, sergeant john crudo, i'm attached to the training division, the field task force operations unit. so i'm here to just real quick, go over. the revision to department

general order 310, the current version of 310 is actually titled firearm discharge review board, and it dates back to 2005. so, september 21st. so i'm here as the sme on this, i had i've had a lot of experience with this policy over the years. i actually was the one of the first secretaries as a q2, as an officer, for the firearm discharge review board sat in. i presented to it later on, internal affairs presented to i, as part of ftfo, so this i know that this has been a long time in the works. it's, it's obviously been on the spark schedule for a while, the revised version is called serious incident review board. it expands some of the oversight of the review board, to include,

incidents beyond firearm discharge, officer-involved shootings, and officer involved discharges. it expands this process for greater review this new version in addition to kind of updating it but it it incorporates changes to our command structure changes to our organization, it, it incorporates changes in mous with other agencies. it, it codifies certain things that over time have developed. for example, the training division is not listed in 310. they are an important part of the fdb, or it will be called the serious incident review board. if this passes, as well as the field training force options unit has become kind of a component of that. as examples. those are units that that are now formally

listed as, as participants in the process, the scope of the reviews, the, the reviews themselves, like i said, it expands to additional additional types of incidents beyond those discharges, it would include some major incidents, critical incidents. there's a list that's defined in there. officer involved shootings, officer involved discharges. and, some certain critical incidents or incidents that may be assigned by, by the chief for review through this process, it it really kind of narrows down the findings because the way it works is the firearm discharge review board reviews the investigative conclusions of these incidents, is should be

synthesizing it and then presenting a recommendation to the chief for final disposition with respect to those investigations, including any disciplinary, any disciplinary recommendations, as well as what we're making sure that this does is more the holistic stuff that it that it includes, as it says in 310 on page one or the new version 310 on page one, the serb will opine upon policy findings, training tactics, training tactics, decision making procedures, trends and or other issues that have been identified by the serb through this process. so it really ensures that we're not just the old the old policy, says a finding of in policy or not in policy or further review with respect to the discharge. what this now says it really kind of makes this more robust in the review, not just merely the use of force, which is obviously a

core piece, but the other elements that may be involved and where it identifies perhaps a training issues or things like that, we've really kind of focused, tried to focus the scope. so that the recommendations coming back through the chief identify where those deficiencies really sit, i worked with a few people on this and i'll mention them in a sec. but, lieutenant, retired lieutenant nevin, was one of the folks who worked on this revision. and this goes way back when we were both presenting to the drb as investigators. and we always talked about being able to close the loop and bring all the training back and the lessons learned and making sure and this, this, this revision really kind of i think drives that that home so that we're making sure that that lessons

learned are really integrated and brought around full circle. as far as dpa recommendations, there were there were 13 different points that were raised. most of the most of them were, just linguistic, very, very semantic oriented things. and we, you know, or they just wanted to have some questions with the smes about kind of what our, different concerns and, and on every point after discussion and i will say that, director henry is a very collaborative process, we had several meetings, and i do want to acknowledge, because i saw diana rosenstein here, diana and, jermaine jones was very helpful. and, janelle caywood and we had a lot of back and forth about concerns and how to, you know,

we had obviously developed our side of things and what we thought would be best. and i think everybody came out of this, this, this process sort of pleased with what we ended up with, so of the of the 13 points was consensus and agreement on all 13 and how how it came out in the in in this draft, as far as timeline for implementation, you know, this doesn't really it's, it's a very internal command structure level process. it's not going to require department wide training. it seems that the 45 day standard would be applicable to this, it, it it's really a fine tuning of current process to make sure we do address these things. now, i do want to acknowledge that, where we find these issues and, but, it just makes sure that we're kind of the feedback that's coming out for example, again, right now out of the

training division, i'm focused on that. but the specific training issues or concerns that that are raised as, as a result of these things. so it just makes sure that the feedback coming out is, is specific and, and operational. so sergeant kudo, i want to thank you for your dedication and work on this, as well as lieutenant nevin. i was, when i first joined the commission. this was one of the tasks that i became involved with, and i think it even started with sandra marion from dpa. that's how long this vision or has been going. and so it's really great to see it come into fruition, and it was a vision, i think, that incorporated before cpm or cmcr was created and now utilized by the department. it has a lot of those characteristics. so it's great to see what you call a holistic approach to these type of, reviewing these incidents and really just not only critiquing, but learning from them, i think, which is the most important part and seems to be

extremely beneficial to the department, i think. i think with changes in the law, and i was going to mention it and, you know, a little nervous, but. 835 a, for example, and the changes in state law and really making sure you know where tactics and decision making is part of it. and of course, you know, the standard of reasonableness is the standard of reasonableness. it's not perfection, but, you know, nonetheless, every one of these incidents and i've said it in here before, when i presented as an investigator every one of these types of incidents, they have things that we can learn from, things that we can improve on, or things that maybe validate. what we're doing is actually working. so and that's important, and i think and we talked about this, in, in the concurrence process that there's kind of a restorative element to for, for members. right. so making sure that you know, folks that are making we always talk about maybe we talk about

mistakes of the heart versus mistakes of the mind. right. so, and really, the, you know, when you have that mistake of the mind or misunderstanding of something or whatever, this this really gives us a chance to address and correct and, and move forward on that. i also wanted to thank sarah hawkins because i think when i joined, she also was very pivotal in, in the, the initial first, first draft of when this came about. so director henderson yeah, it was a lot of people from my agency, but i will say, i think it's a really big deal, for the chief and the department. and thank you so much, sergeant crudo. but expanding the firearm discharge review into a broader category of serious incidents, i think, is a step in the right direction in terms of expanding a critical eye and review of policing practices that only makes the department better. so i, i don't want that lost, and i

will also say that having the expansion focused on tactics, training and policy as well, versus just a final frame analysis, for instance, to take place is going to be a big deal. and move the needle significantly in how we evaluate incidents after action. so, i just wanted to make sure that i articulated those things because i do think it's really important. and thank you so much for not just making the expansions that, i talked about, but making them collaboratively. so that dpa in particular plays an active role. and has a voice in what that process is. i do think it's going to make a difference, and it is going to make the department better. thank you, commissioner benedicto. thank you, president elias, thank you for that presentation. and thank you to you, sergeant. and to mike nevin for the tremendous work like president elias, you know, been i think it was long before i was on the commission and just working with the blue ribbon

panel in 2015, when predating cmc and predating all of that, and to see this come to fruition, is really wonderful to see. so thank you for your hard work and looking forward to this new process rolling out. with that, i will make a motion to approve, department general order 3.10 for use in meeting and conferring with the effect of bargaining units pursuant to our labor relations resolution 23, dash 30. second. for any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item ten, please approach the podium and 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 young. yes yes. commissioner says yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter overstone is. yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. line item. quick. i'm sorry to interrupt.

can i just ask a quick question? i think i understand this, but i just want to make sure. does this the new board, is that going to take the place of the discipline? review board? no, i didn't think so. i just wanted a separate board. yeah. i just wanted to make sure. thank you. sorry line item 11 discussion and possible action to approve revised department. general order 8.03 crowd control for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. hello, my name is deputy chief raj vaswani of special operations bureau. and good evening to the commissioners, dpa director paul henderson and chief scott, and members of the public that are watching tonight. we've submitted dhiego 8.03 crowd control and for your approval and dhiego 8.03 was on the 2023 working group list, which prompted the update. first, i'd like to thank the

working group. i also would like to thank the working group for working between december 23rd to april 2024, which was seven meetings. i want to thank commissioner carter oberstein for being the representative from the commission. some of the participants in the working group are department of police accountability. jermaine was consistent through jermaine jones was consistent through the meetings, but also other members of dpa, the public defender's office, office, fisherman's wharf community, chinatown merchants association, bar association of san francisco, sf, office of racial equity, the po, saving our amazing richmond district saw, which was a community group. a member from the mission station cpab and the street violence intervention

program. the primary goal of this was to clarify and define sfpd responsibility. once there is an unlawful assembly, rather than going into a general crowd management, perspective on the policy, we basically aligned the policy with the updated laws that impacted crowd control. the major changes i would like to highlight are we added a definition section that was actually asked by the officers. when we asked for input, they did want, different definitions for crowd control, crowd management, etc. we added dispersal order section as a subcategory. we also added use of kinetic energy projectiles and chemical agents per california penal code 13 652. we

described what a authorized representative of the media was and what access is authorized under state law in specified closed areas during a demonstration or assembly. dpa provided two recommendations during stage one of the development, one was fully accepted and one was partially accepted. we partially accepted the recommendation related to detaining members of the media, and what we did is, with collaboration, we mirrored the language of 409.7 of the penal code, which covers media interactions during demonstrations and protests. a recap of the recommendations, the working group provided 60 recommendations, 38 recommendations were accepted, ten were partially accepted, 12

were either not accepted or were administrative questions. in the 30 day public comment period, we received six recommendations and with those six recommendations, we collaborated with dpa and agreed on responses to four of those recommendations. and i, with me here are mr. busey of the policy development and our subject matter expert, lieutenant matt sullivan, who is crucial to developing this policy. the primary sm was matt sullivan, and of course, his team. i'd also like to thank captain jim ahern, who was critical. he was there consistently through those seven meetings and also behind the scenes of the tactical unit and ahsha steve's, who's in the bac,

of the policy development unit. she's the division manager and our in-house attorney, steven betts, who is not here but was crucial to helping us with research. and he worked with jermaine to give us input and research. and again, the members that are behind me to assist with any questions and answers for your review. thank you. commissioner benedicto, before, okay. all right. well congratulations on the policy. can i get a motion? so move. do you need the 45 days to implement? it's still approval. it's not approval. oh that's right. okay, right. motion to approve pursuant to the labor. labor relations resolution. second. if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 11, please approach the podium. and 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. yes yes. mr. yanez is. yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter is. yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. line item 12. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 14 below. closed session, including public comment on item 13. vote whether to hold item 14 in closed session. if you'd like to make public comment, please approach the podium. and there is no public comment. line item 13 a vote on whether to hold item 14 in closed session san francisco administrative code section 67.10 d action motion to go into closed session. second 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 says yes. commissioner. yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter oberstar. yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you

have seven yeses. we will go into closed session. unless you want to. you. you're the madam president. whatever you want. i'm doing whatever you want. all right, commissioners, we are back in open session, on line. item 15. vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion on item 14, held in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.12, a action motion not to disclose. closed session. second, any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 15. please approach the podium seeing none 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. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter is. yes.

and president elias, president elias is. yes. you have seven yeses. is this our line? item 16. adjournment sorry, madam president, we're just going to go.

[music] san francisco emergency home program is a safety net for sustableable commuters if you bike, walk, take public transit or shares mobility you are eligible for a free and safe

roadway home the city will reimburse you up to $150 dlrs in an event of an emergency. to learn more how to submit a reimbursement visit sferh. >> conduct a field shelter exercise where we open up a number of tents that animal control has they have supplies and equipment and staff and volunteers. we simulate the need for cape ability after a disaster or earthquake. >> animal care and control is your city's animal shelter. we care for approximately 10,000 animals a year. we are opinion for san francisco's animal in thes upon effect of an emergency.

we got our tents and practicing how to deal with that. >> this is the shelter is overwhelmed with animals after a disaster this shelter is full regularly. if we torch have an event that would cause a number of animals to escape or injured or stray or separate friday their people that's where we would respond. >> pets are part of the family and need to make sure they are taken care of like people with the supplies and equip we are able to provide shelter for pets in addition to the existing shelter. >> we have formulated a plan so this in the event of a disaster we are hear ready to help and support the city. >> we are able to use the muni bus to transport the people. animals and other equip if the

shelter. >> encourage people there is an evacuation order to take your pet with you. >> very first thing everyone should do is microchip the pet. and pack a bag >> shelter cert not a place where you want your animal to end up unless the last resort and like to keep most out of the shelter when we can. >> take care of your people and your friend and family. pets need to be taken complaint

not (indiscernible) that concludes today's overview. thank you for your time. >> what happens after a complaint is submitted? when dpa receives a complaint, the first step is it to assign it to a investigator. if the complainant provides contact information, they receive a letter telling them knoo they assigned investigator will be. if the complaint is

submitted anonymously they will not receive further contact from dp. >> what happens when dpa finds a police miscucktd? >> the dpa find misconduct, meaning sustain a complaint, the next step is to determine how serious the misconduct is and what discipline the dpa will request (indiscernible) the dpa does not itself impose discipline and can only recommend discipline in a sustained case. >> what happens if a complaint turninize to a chief nonnob >> if the dpa decides to recommend 10 days suspension or less, the chief of police is the final determner of both whether misconduct occurred, and if the chief agrees misconduct occurred, what the disciplineitary

penalty will be. in those cases if the chief disagreewise dpa, the case is over and dpa does not have any recourse. if the chief decides that misconduct occurred, and to impose discipline, an officer has a right to a hearing before that decision is final. >> what happens if a dpa complaint turns into a commission level case? >> if the dpa determines a 11 day suspension all the way up to termination is the appropriate outcome for a misconduct case, a trial is held in front of the police commission. normally, one commissioner presides over the trial, then the entire commission will read the transcript and vote. if the commission determines misconduct occurs, then the commission also determines what the penalty will be.

if you are stopped by a police officer you should follow the officer direction, keep calm, keep still, and do not make sudden movements do not reach for anything, especially in your pockets, keep your hands visible at all times. you have the right to remain silent. this means you do not have to say anything. tell the officer i want to remain silnts. you have a right to a attorney. tell the officer i would like a attorney. if you are arrested do not talk about your case or immigration status to anyone other then your attorney. do not sign anything without your attorney. do not lie to law enforcement officers and if you are property are being searched make sure i do not consent to the search. do not challenge the officer, you can file a complaint about police services later, if you are not comfortable speaking english you can ask for a bilingual officer who speaks your language and also ask

for a interpre >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language]

[♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪] >> september 23, 2024. the meeting is called to order at 435 p.m. the meeting is held in city hall room 400 and broadcast live. the small commission thanks media service and sf tv. gov tv. we welcome participation during public comment. there will be a opportunity for

r