and then joined officer one. a plan was discussed by a third officer to use spike strips. however, they were unable to deploy the spike strips as an adjacent alley in front of the vehicle happened to be blocked off due to construction. the plainclothes team stated they did not call for marked units because a lot of times they have the radio and it scares them off and puts the public at risk. so officer one and two formulated a plan to prone the suspects out at gunpoint and take them into custody. they had their sfpd stars displayed and their gun, their guns out. it was at this time when one of the suspects or subjects saw officer one and jumped back into the mitsubishi, and so the second suspect that was standing outside of the car had not been alerted. so their plan kind of went out the windo. so at this point, they started

running up on them and yelled police department. and the one officer kind of bear hugged the suspect from behind. officer one heard a loud pop and heard the or saw the suspect bleeding from the left wrist. officer one realized they had their gun out and had unintentionally shot the suspect. officer one explained that in their mind, they truly believed that they had holstered the their gun before running to grab the suspect. officer one one rendered aid to the suspect in a tourniquet applied in. the sergeant responded to the scene of the oas. sorry, i've not been keeping up with my slides. these were the recommendations of the investigator to the board, which were out, obviously out of policy on the use of force listed here. the other officer and sergeant were found to be

improper conduct when i did my evaluation. the difference here, because from the get go, the officer said he did not mean to fire the weapon. so i didn't feel a proportionality. immediate threat was really relevant. so when i did my evaluation and presented it to chief scott, we looked at dgo 5.01, specifically the safe handling of firearms section, which is what what was presented to chief scott, like, i said. in the third quarter of 2024, there were zero in-custody deaths presented to the in-custody death review board. and then last is just open eyes and in-custody death investigations, which i know you guys received this. so if you have any questions on that, i'm here to answer them. otherwise. that concludes my presentation.

acting director wu, the only thing that i would mention is that dpa did do an investigatio. we concurred with the findings of iad and the recommendations to the chief. the one thing that i would mention that i thought was quite laudable was the immediacy upon which the department took action on this particular type of event, creating a new training for holster ready, i think they call it the subject matter expert was sergeant timothy yee, who at the academy is training now. officers not to do with this particular officer did and that took place very quickly. and the department saw the need for that and acted really expediently. and chief scott could probably speak to they immediately suspended, like all plainclothes operations until they, they figured things out. and like i said, the officer came forth right away and admitted that he made a mistake. yeah. i mean, i can speak to that. we did. and i

recall we disclosed that to the commission and to the public that we did as a lieutenant, springer said, suspended plainclothes operations basically got all the plainclothes sergeants and some of the key officers to revise the tactics. and the training, and they stayed offline until that happened. and even since then, there's been additional advancements in training. and when we see an issue, we try to address it right away. so a lot i mean, this was, of course, an unfortunate, very unfortunate situation, but there was a lot of good that came after the fact that us doing what we needed to do to make corrections, i think the training doubled. and now includes a portion at the range as well and not just classroom. thank you lieutenant, thank you. for members of the public who would like to make public

comment regarding line item nine, please approach the podiu. sorry, stacy, i had my hand up. i know it's tough. sorry. i'm sorry. and i asked on the previous one. sorry, commissioner yang. yes. thank you, president elias. i actually have my hand up for the previous item around the policy failures and trainings. i just, i just, you know, i cannot fail to point out that based on, you know, i think the dpa director also noted that it's very appropriate for us to be having a conversation about body worn camera when in effect. here we have a policy failure that is specifically regarding how vague our body-worn camera policy is when it comes to citing police tactics and confidential information. administrative investigation. so i am very hopeful that we will be able to find a solution that helps us both hold folks accountable if

and when they are, you know, muting their camera for things that are outside of policy and that we will come up with a better policy moving forward. and i did have a question about i mean, it is very difficult for me to understand and wrap my head around how it's possible that an individual who's under the influence of alcohol and is flashing a gun outside, you know, the vehicle, how that individual is just not arrested. and it's hard for me to believe that, you know, this was only a policy failure. and i think back to the conversation previously, if we had more camera available for that incident, we may be able to improve and raise

awareness about when it is appropriate, when it is for future training purposes necessary to mute that and when it is not. and so i think it is just very, very clear to me that that that policy failure at least in this incident, can be easily corrected by some of the suggestions that we talked about earlier with some specificity as we designing moving forward. so thank you for letting me share that. i just thought i couldn't let them go on without having made that connection. thank you. if anybody would like to make public comment on line item nine, please approach the podiu. there is no public comment. line item 11 discussion and presentation on the department's update of juvenile booking diversion program at the request of the commission. discussion.

good evening, president. commissioners. chief scott, acting director sharon wu, welcome back. my name is kara lisi. i'm here to present an update for you all on where we are as it relates to our build out and implementation of the pre-arrest juvenile diversion project. so going back to late august, in late august, the department, myself and chief scott met with commissioner yanez and juvenile commission president margaret brodkin about where we were as it relates to the pre-arrest diversion project and some remaining issues. we were trying to work out. it was a very productive conversation that we had following that meeting that we had. i drafted

an mou for all of the stakeholders to be able to review that mou was sent out in late september, early october to the juvenile probation department, to clark, to the district attorney's office and to the san francisco public defender's office. all of the stakeholders that we have identified and would like to sign off on that mou. following that, we were able to have very productive initial conversations with the district attorney's office and jpd. we received substantial edits and feedback from clark. most of those edits we have accepted, the rest. we've indicated to clark, we need to discuss, and we're waiting on additional feedback from our other stakeholders before having those follow up discussions. by the end of october, we were able to meet with the district attorney's office to discuss their position on this program and some of the things that they'd like to see

or issues that they wanted to raise. we also were able to meet with the juvenile probation department the beginning of november, and had a very productive conversation. jpd indicated to us that they wanted to think more about the proposal, and some of the steps that we thought a youth might take, particularly around failure to complete the program and whether or not the pre-arrest diversion program would replace the current diversion program that exists, or simply supplement it from our conversations with the district attorney's office and the juvenile probation department, we it was made clear to us that it would be helpful if we got buy in from the courts with regards to this program and some of the back end consequences that might be written into it. so just today we were able to meet with judge chan, who is the presiding judge over the unified family court. we had a very

productive meeting with him today, received great feedback on the program and some suggested edits. so that's where we are today. what we are still waiting for is feedback. that's supposed to be coming from the public defender's office. we're waiting for additional feedback from the juvenile probation department. once we receive all that feedback and we're able to put together all of the edits that we've received from all of the stakeholders, i am hopeful that in the near future, we will be able to have maybe one final meeting or a revised mou that everyone can see, and we can hopefully have sign off on that from all of our stakeholders. that is my update. happy to answer any questions. mr. yanez, i'm sure you have questions on this one. right. thank you. yes i do i saw my hand waving you must have sensed it. thank you for the update, kara. i'm really

happy to hear that some progress has been made and these meetings with the probation department, with the district attorney's office, and it's really promising to hear that judge chan has also had an opportunity to review the proposals. would would you have a timeline for when or was there a timeline set for when the feedback from the public defender's office or from judge chan will be completed? so the public defender's office did not give me a timeline. they indicated that their executive leadership staff was reviewing the proposal. i think what was very helpful and will be very helpful in moving this forward was the buy in that we received from the courts today, and i'm hopeful that we'll be able to go

back to our justice partners and really wrap this up with an understanding, with everyone understanding that this is something that, you know, at least initially, we think the courts will support. so i can't i don't know how much longer it will take jpd or the public defender's office to get back to us, but i certainly think that given the support we've received from the courts today, we can we can push this issue moving forward. now with regard to whether this will be supplanting or enhancing the existing diversion efforts that we had. this is the first i've heard of this. i think throughout our conversations with community partners and with the department, there's been very clear, especially based on the presentation that was provided to us by the organization at santa clara down in los angeles. as the folks from oakland who

also run a similar program. the presentation was, you know, back in may of last year. i think it was very clear to everyone that what pre-booking entails is an additional step to enhance the continuum of existing diversion alternatives and efforts that we have now, is that still the direction that the department intends to take, or are we now revisiting the model itself? no. so you're correct, commissioner, that the vision that i think we had and we have always discussed really was a transition from a post arrest, post citation diversion program into a pre-arrest no citation program. that is that is the plan. and that is where we're going. what was raised by some of our stakeholders is a question of whether or not a citation like that. a post arrest. you've been

cited diversion still exists. and originally when we contemplated this, we contemplated that the pre-arrest diversion program would become the only diversion program that there was really no no one would be diverted after a citation. and i think what's been raised is this question of if somebody were to fail to successfully complete the pre-arrest, no citation program and were cited, could they then could there be a sort of graduated consequence, additional diversion program through clark? that is something that we hadn't originally contemplated but has been raised. and i think is something that is being considered as a potential option. okay. thank you for that. and i'm sure that's something that will be raised. i've been asked to provide an update to the juvenile probation commission at some point next week. possibly. and i wanted to make sure that

any new developments are also relayed and conveyed to that commission in november of last year, the jpd commission did put together also a resolution endorsing supporting this program. i just wanted to point that out that it's now been close to 18 months since we had a presentation. has there been any progress with regards to the department identifying a training plan and a system for data collection, analysis and ensuring that whatever that system is, that it's going to be set up. also provides a process for people that complete the program to not have a record held in any space. i know that those are three questions in one. we can tackle the timeline

for training first, because i know that's something that policy director roche, i believe, had mentioned at some point, maybe the summer of last year. but when i raised the question to community engagement division, it was news to them. is there any progress in that area? if i understand as it relates to a the training rollout for this program, is that what the question was in conversations with the chief, because he knows the model very well and my understanding is that policy director roach also is aware of that model. and she had committed at least in some of the conversations that we've had with park to utilize the sentinella program, which does capacity building, to ensure that departments that want to replicate the effort are properly trained in both the system and identification of

potential eligible participants. that's why we developed the model coming from care. all of the things that we have embedded now into the dgo proper, which we will hopefully be voting on in the next month or two, that that statement was made over nine months ago, and i have not heard of any commitment, any plan, any staffing, training process. has there been any progress in that area? so i think once the program is fully built out, once it's rolled out, it will come with a training component. we are in the process right now of creating many of those documents that will be part of the rollout, right? like the department notice and all of that. but we need to create the program and finish the program before we can be too sure what the training looks like. what i

can say is that this program was designed to be very similar to have officers take very similar steps that they would with anyone that they have probable cause to arrest, which is to call clark. right. and that clark is the entity that will help the officers walk through their eligibility for this program and the steps that they would need to take, or whether or not they weren't eligible, if they need to cite them, if they need to transport them, if they're going to be booked into juvenile hall. all of that gets done through a conversation with clark. and this program was specifically designed to also start with a conversation with clark, which i hope will decrease the need for extensive training and allow us to roll this out in a much smoother and faster way once we're done. so if i'm understanding correctly, there has not been any training identified or any new training

embedded or offered up to this point where we're imagining doing this after the mou and design efforts have taken place, even though there is some an organization that is available to do that cheap at one point, i believe that, you know, the conversation had been to use the census organization or any other organization that focuses on working such a restorative type of program to obtain best practices, raise the capacity of our of our department, which has not had a youth division in quite some time. is there a commitment to engage in that process, or is this something that, as kara pointed out, will just kind of grow out in the same fashion as any other go? retraining would would require? yeah. so at this point,

commissioner, there is not a commitment to stand up a juvenile division. we just don't have the people for it. the it definitely is something that we've talked about and we would like to do at some point. we just don't have the personnel to do it the way this will roll out. you know, we still we do have a person, the same sergeant that we had identified is still willing to do it. so and that's a that's a personnel driven thing that, you know, the sergeant was previously assigned to community engagement division. she's now assigned to a district station. but we believe we can we can at least get this started with that same sergeant. and she is willing to do it. and she's enthusiastic about this type of work. so once we get the mou settled, as far as the training, then i think we're able to set what things we need to train on. and we got a lot of insight from the court today, things that we plan to bring to this mou. hopefully we need to talk to the

collaborative stakeholders about some of the issues that the judge brought up. but there was some good information that i think will enhance the program. if we can, we can implement it. so we don't want to really set the training until those things get settled. and i know it's taken a long time, but i feel like we've made some really good progress. and now we need to just kind of close the deal with our collaborative partners. there's some language, like with juvenile probation, that we're waiting on decisions on. there's, you know, waiting on the public defenders. we've had the meeting with the da. they had some requests, and now we have to go back to them with. and so we're getting there. but to answer your question, the training, we have not said it yet because there's still some moving parts with the program and the conversation today. there's going to be a few tweaks to the mou. and we and we will keep you informed when once that's done. but we're going to move on that quickly. thank you for that. i know that obviously when we have a multi system partnership such as this, it is

a, you know, challenge sometimes to get everybody on board on the same page. but to me it really feels like, you know, i wish i the department had a little bit more of a sense of urgency. you know, we've been talking about this for over two years. i received some information from clark. i don't know that these are the actual numbers, but in those two years, at least for fiscal year 23 and year to date, at least 111 young people who could have been eligible for this program is my understandin, and more than likely, even more. this is just raw data doesn't necessarily have, you know, the types of charges. and we haven't identified what those charges would be for this program. but based on the evidence of the long standing program program in los angeles, you know, i had some numbers from them, 95% success rate, you know, with

only 5% of those young people recidivism being, you know, $40,000 saved per youth enrolled in the program versus them going into the program and having a 20% recidivism rate when they don't have the program. so i can imagine that of those 111 of these young people, you know, we could have potentially already diverted to you know, development education programs and help young people stay out of the system. so i hope that we can use this kind of reset and this new year to kind of, you know, accelerate the process. i think we can you know, talk and chew gum at the same time. i don't see why we can't train by by people to start learning what these best practices are around restorative justice, around trauma informed care, which i know exists in the department. but i would love to see and i am

encouraging, compelling you to get the ball rolling in those areas because the youth, based on what the community has said, you know, is, is a document that will help you guide the program moving forward. once we have the commitments. but ultimately there is, i think, some capacity building that the department can invest in. before we finalize that mou. but i think those are my questions for today. thank you for the update. i know that commissioner benedicto has been pressing to have 101, you know, go through the legal and the vetting process for us to take a vote on it. and i hope that when we have that, if there is some more information about progress towards launching the diversion program, i would really appreciate for that to happen. on the same date, if possible.

thank you very much. commissioner benedicto, thank you very much. president elias. thank you, commissioner yanez, for your leadership on this issue. thank you, director lacey, for that update. i would definitely echo what commissioner yanya said to both director lacey and the chief that i think we do want to see, you know, movement on this. i'm glad there's been progress, but we do want to see an urgency on this. i think it would be helpful to maybe schedule another update for sometime in the first quarter of next year to see where progress has been. so we're continuing to keep our eye and our attention on this. like commissioner yanya said, we'll we're also pushing i know they're related, but independent. the 7.01, you know, one thing i want to make clear is i don't want one to hold up the other like i don't want we need to have oh 7.01 perfect before we can launch diversion. and i don't want we need to be sure that version is ready before we launch d.o.j. 7.01. so i think they're connected but not relying on each other. and

so i want to make that completely clear. that being said, where we can advance them in tandem, i think that's a good opportunity. i think particularly where we want to get the community here, when we want to get clark, when we want to get folks from the community here, it's a lot to ask. and so to the extent we can have discussions at the same time, i think that's productive. i'm glad that in the chief's report, we talked about getting the comprehensive response to the community. 7.01 letter before the end of this calendar year. thank you for that. i know that won't be easy. and so i really do do appreciate it. i and so that way it'll be in a position where we can hopefully calendar it for as early as possible next year and have the community respond or react. you know, i think we saw a little bit in some of the back and forth on 10.11 today that sometimes it's better when we have our things laid out in advance, and then we're not sort of figuring things out live in front of everyone. and so i think that can be an instructive. well, i think that was a productive conversation. i think it could be instructive that you know, to the extent you can hash things

out in advance, it's better. i think everyone agrees on that. and hopefully we can do that. for a lot of the 7.01 issues. so thank you for that update. and looking forward to continuing to move this project forward. sergeant, for any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 11. please approach the podium. there is no public comment. line item 12 discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 5.18. persons in custody and transportation for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. good evening everyone. my name is mark moreno. i'm a lieutenant currently assigned to the airport division chief scot. president, commissioner. president. elias i was the subject matter expert on deago 5.18. persons in custody and transportation. before i go over

a couple of the quick highlights, i wanted to thank publicly our working group which included at that time, sergeant matt ortega, who's now lieutenant matt ortega. ironically, he took my position at central station when i was transferred, but he did a lot of the heavy lifting on this dgo, so i wanted to thank him. we had representatives from the san francisco fire department, the sheriff's department and department of police accountability, and i'd also like to mention that janelle caywood from dpa was really helpful with their insight and their feedback and suggestions. so deago 5.18 was last adopted in 2008. some of the highlights and changes that we made, probably the first thing is we replaced the term prisoner and prisoner handling to persons in custody. we felt that was kind of a more expansive term, consistent with other newer adopted. we created a definition section at the beginning of this dgo. we also replaced the

special category section with a vulnerable population section that includes like juveniles, elderly persons, pregnant persons, and persons with physical disabilities. we incorporated several department notices into this dgo. one of the most important being transporting persons who use mobility devices. and then finally, we updated the overall organization and content for clarity. i think one of the things that we found in the existing dgo is that we there was a lot of things that we did that were considered best practice, but we didn't have it in writing. so what we really tried to do is incorporate a lot of that into this new dgo. and we've certainly expanded it a little bit, and i'm happy to answer any questions that any of you may have. commissioner. no, that's okay. commissioner yanez, do you have anything? no. thank you