poster art especially they are not meant to last are under appreciateated. real paper, the vintage gallery is 777 beach street, tuesday-saturday 11-5 and monday 12-5.

the first time with kids. so

they planned it. they planned it all. like you're ready. and we missed the storm up there. really? yeah. we missed the river. you know, it was supposedly hit us on the. it was coming in. my dog. all right. continuing with roll, commissioner janez. commissioner, you present. commissioner janez. can you hear me? sometimes they have the mic.

i can't, i can't hear you for some reason, even though i'm on the video. just to call roll. you can hear me now. are you present? are you present? present. okay. thank you. let let me try to. i'll re log on. all right. thank you. thank you. commissioner yee. here. and vice president carter, we're still present. and we now have quorum president elias has also joined us. hello. thank you. please resume. all right. president elias is here. all right. also with us tonight, we have chief scott from the san francisco police department and acting director jermaine jones from the department of police accountability. they brought you back. you silenced the crowd last time. that's why. go for

it. all right. line item one. weekly officer recognition certificate. presentation of an officer who has gone above and beyond in the performance of their duties. officer ashley muhly, star number 1496 from ingleside station. good evening. commissioners. chief, everybody in the room. hi. my name is amy hurwitz. i am the captain of ingleside statio. if you don't know where ingleside station is, we are probably the southernmost district station in san francisco. we deal with many of the crimes that the other district stations have to deal with robbery, drugs, burglary, etc. but we also have a unique challenge of gambling establishments. so illegal

gambling establishments, these have been on the news, and a lot of people are like ma. so what? it's a gambling establishment, but it's the things that these establishments bring to our neighborhoods, both commercial and residential. so that is why officer ashley, molly and other members of the ingleside police department, ingleside station of the san francisco police department are here today. so before we get into the why we're here, we're going to talk about the who is standing next to me. so, officer ashley, molly is a fourth generation first responder. yay! her mom was a firefighter in the presidio. her dad was a san francisco fire department. she grew up in san francisco, and the thing that i like the most is she has a gecko whose name is wayne, which is an excellent name for a gecko and or a dog or cat. she is an outstanding officer and an exceptional human being. officer

molly is happy to take on a challenge and learn new things. this is how she is developing to become one of the future leaders of this department. and i believe that one day she will be sitting in that chair. so yay! officer molly really believes in safeguarding her community. the one of the most outstanding things about her is she is an advocate for domestic violence survivors. officer molly and some of her relatives are survivors. and even though this is a horrible thing, it enabled officer molly to recognize the situation, take proper action, and to help victims because that is why we have signed up to do this job is to help people. so why are we here today? so we had an a call one evening for a home invasion. shots fired, which is sort of an odd thing to hear in a residential neighborhood in the ingleside district. officers responded. the scene was under

control, and once the investigation began, they quickly realized that what they were dealing with was an illegal gambling establishment. so here's part of the problem. these establishments bring with them violence. so we're having shots fired in a in a quiet residential neighborhood. they attract people who commit robberies, burglaries, bring drugs in. and it really becomes very taxing for the neighborhood. and they complain to us and they tell us and sometimes they are just afraid to say something because they are held captive by what is going in and out of these house. so officer molly learned about the house. she knew that something more had to be done than just saying, oh yeah, cool. i'll take a police report. so officer molly began an investigation, which led to writing a search warrant, getting a team together and serving the search warrant on

the house. this is outstanding because, first of all, our patrol officers, as everybody in this room knows, does not have the time to do this. officer molly volunteered her time, so she gave up her time with her friends and her family to work on this case. this was huge. once that warrant was served, we walked out of there with illegal gambling machines, weapons and drugs. the people who were watching this go down on the street were thrilled. you know, it was a lot of quiet whispers to us like, oh my god, thank you. i mean, this house has been so horrible for us. and just to like, really overt, like, oh, we love you. thank you so much. so it's this kind of stuff. it's the quality of life that people really care about. and it's the things that sometimes they stop calling us about out of frustration, but we really care. and officer molly really needs to be commended for stepping up to making things better for people. so for that, she is 100%

our officer of the month. so officer molly, this is for you. this is a good looking certificate. thank you. officer of the week. okay. do you want to. oh go ahead. oh thank you for the ability for allowing me to protect and serve my community. it really it makes a difference being able to help the people that i grew up with. and also just make new acquaintances in the city that i love. so thank you. chief. thank you. brett. you. president elias. officer molly, first of all, congratulations. i know i've heard your your stories about your your great work before tonight, but i just want to say, you know, captain horowitz, i think said it best, but we're really proud of the

work that you do. and i see all your partners and your sergeant here to support you, which also means a lot. and, you know, nobody does this alone, but your individual efforts have made you shine. so it's very deserving. and we're really proud to have you as a member of our department, doing the work that you do, because it matters and you matter. so thank you so muc. yes, i'm going to echo that. thank you. first, we are happy that you are here a native. we won't give you pop quiz of asking what school you went to. we'll save that. okay. well then you're even even better in my book and we are happy you know that you are here. you're providing. but i think what speaks volumes is the collegiality and the fact that your coworkers are here to celebrate this accomplishment for you. so, you know, i want to congratulate you. thank you for your service and for your description of the amazing work that she's done. so thank you, commissioner benedicto. thank you so much. president elias. thank you, captain hurwitz, for

that presentation. congratulations to officer molly. i'll definitely echo what president elias said. additionally, for those members of the public who are not aware, this is the second time officer molly has been recognized. i know for the officer of the month was you as well as some of your colleagues from ingleside were also recognized for this great work. so thank you for doing this work. and congratulations again. commissioner yee, thank you very much. there. president elias, i also want to echo what the commissioner, kevin benedicto, said and your captain being selected again, the weekly officer of the week is being recognized for all your hard work and your dedication to public safety here. so again, thank you and congratulations and wish you the best in your future. and to the team too. as well. ingleside team, thank you very much. sergeant i'll take a

snapshot here. if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item one, please approach the podium going. right. and there is no public comment. one announcement for tonight for on the agenda tonight we are going to be removing line item three consent calendar as well as line item 13. the discussion on dgo 6.14. thank you for that 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 sfpd. 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 would like to make public comment, please approach the podium. at. good evening, police commission. for the record, my name is chris ward klein. i've been coming here for several months now, and i've been hearing this story and it's hard. and yesterday at the city, the board of supervisors, the city, the former city attorney admitted to the technology behind miss oracle and everything. so now we know where the records are. so i'm going to ask the police commission to influence the police department to get a subpoena for the records that the city attorney's office, and they're protecting a person that influenced this crime in the state of california. that is a crime to influence somebody to commit a crime. so most of you

probably don't know of my background. i was a former investigator. i have a nonprofit where we do free investigations for people that just need assistance. i've been in the federal court numerous times. i've worked with the secret service, the fbi, department of justice, health and human services, commerce department, locally and state police. that's where the records are at. it's time for closure to give this mother closure and time to heal. i am available to each of you. you have my contact information. if you don't, i will leave it. but that's where the records are. we need to get a subpoena for the records. it's an hmi s system. it's oracle salesforce. it's no longer a secret because dennis o'hara is the best character witness out there. he admitted to it yesterday in front of the board of supervisors and all the city attorneys were there. that's where the records are. please act on this. thank you.

okay. so good evening. i was waiting for the chief, but he's not here. he's coming back. did you start? no, it's not fair. okay. never mind. so it's going to be the third time i'm saying this twice to the board of supervisors. but you need to be aware. it's not normally my so-called job to say it, but. okay, you will know now for good that the pandemic of unintelligence coming from something called covid, the meaning of covid is certificate of vaccination id in reverse. it reads devoxx which in hebrew means demon. now you will know.

for what's coming, probably next, because i think an intelligence of which we are all the victims here in the city, but all over the world is going to double down until it's clear that it fails because it's going to fail. you're going to fail. no technology, because technology basically, whether as a tool or a weapon today as self-control by definition, it's a machine. so whoever promotes this technology seems not to have much self-control, you know, whereas we human beings needs absolutely self-control just to copy eternity, because eternity is self control. that's it. have a good night. good

evening, commissioners. chief scott. my name is paul allen. i wish to suggest to the police commission that at its first meeting next year or as soon thereafter as practicable, we move from the micro to the macr, and that is to agendize. or perhaps it's not even necessary to have a report from the chief on for the calendar year 2020 for the three most consequential positive actions that the police department was able to take with regard to public safety and with respect to those the reasons, therefore, that is to say, the contributors, the contributing factors and also to report on the three most consequential challenges that the department failed to meet or was unable to

meet. i don't i don't mean to be derogatory when using the term failed, but challenges that were that were unmet and with regard to those also the reasons, therefore, i think that would give the public, particularly at the beginning of a calendar year, and having completed a contentious one, which also was an election, an opportunity to look at the big picture and to understand the accomplishments that were in fact made and also the challenges that lie before us and the reasons of that. those were unmet. and i would urge that that be early on the agenda as soon as possible. thank you. those are great suggestions. mr. allen. we're going to sign you up again for another task.

good evening. happy belated holidays and happy holidays that are getting ready to come up. i'd like to use the overhead. i hear every wednesday bringing awareness to unsolved homicides. again. today, i mean, this year is bittersweet. and my son's case isn't solved. there's an empty plate at the table. christmas was coming. my son loved christmas. i remember

sitting in the mall in the morning putting him down because he was the only boy, and having them open up their christmas presents. we have that anymore. i wrote a. i'm kind of out of words to say, but what i want to put down here is this event. i gave it to max carter over stone to give to present to all of you to come on this day, august 14th. i mean, i mean december 11th at 3:00 on the street renaming, unveiling of the street name of my son. i don't know if this is the first african american boy that have been murdered to homicide to black on black crime. name is put up there, but it's it gives me the reassurance that what i'm saying and all the things that

i've been doing for these last 18 years has not gone in vain. that is something is happening now, and i don't know how what to say. but i thank dean preston for this. thank you. please come out. any member of the public has any information regarding the murder of aubrey plaza. you can call the anonymous 24 over seven tip line at (415) 575-4444. line item four. adoption of minutes. action for the meetings of november 6th and november 20th, 2024. create a motion a motion to adopt the minutes for november 6th and november 20th, with one revision to the november 20th. minutes brought to my attention by staff, which is for the november 20th meeting, noting that it was assistant chief lazaro sitting in for chief scott. i'll 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. i'm seeing none. on the motion, commissioner yana. i'm sorry, commissioner benedict. how do you vote? yes, commissioner benedict is. yes, commissioner jones. yes. mr. jones is. yes, commissioner yi. yes. commissioner yi is. yes. vice president carter. overstone. yes. vice president carter robertson is. yes. and president elias. yes. president. lions is. yes. you have five 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 and activities. the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. chief scott. thank you, sergeant youngblood. good evening, president elias. vice president carter and miss wu, welcome back. and commissioners and the public. i'll start this week's report off with our crime

trends. and i'll be brief on this. so, so far, year to date, this is as of january. i'm sorry. december 1st. we are 30% down in part one crimes. that includes violent and property crimes. the breakdown is 32% reduction in property and 14% reduction in violent crimes. that's a total of a 14,259 crime reduction from this time last year, with three and a half weeks to go in the year. we don't see these these crime decreases being erased, although they may fluctuate slightly. but we're going to end up having a very, very successful year in terms of crime reduction statistically. just a few highlights on those numbers that i just gave. homicides. we are. 33%, 34%, i'm sorry, 34% below where we were this time last year. we had 50 this time last year. 33. year to date. and

we're we're at a pace if we continue this trend to be probably lower than we've been in over 60 years. so i think that's very encouraging news in terms of our shooting related homicides, we're 31% down 32 this time last year, 22 year to date. our gun violence is also down by 26%, 184 compared to 3137 this year. so this year has has been fairly successful in terms of crime reduction on the property side, crime, the biggest, most significant reduction is thefts and particularly car break ins were down 56%. over 10,000 fewer crimes than this time last year. so we are heading into the second week of december with fewer than 10,000 crimes. i don't know when the last time that we've had a statistic that low. so this is due to some really good work by the officers. we do believe that

some of the technology improvements have made a difference. the real time crime center implementation has been huge in terms of the ability to solve more crimes and quicker. and i know i think over time that's going to improve our clearance rate on some of these more difficult crimes like some of the car break ins and all. but so far it's very promising. we do have a lot to say about the gun violence reduction. our every strategy has been three three years plus in the making, and we believe that that has come together. our unit, community violence reduction team has really done a good job buying into that strategy and bringing it to life. so we do believe that that does impact our ability to reduce gun crime, particularly in the southeast part of the city, which has had a 50% reduction over over previous years with gun related crimes. so that's where that strategy has been focused. hopefully we can expand that as staffing allows, but there are some other parts of the city,

including the mission district, where we really believe this. this strategy will be effective. so that's on the future. but we have to have the staffing to do that. other significant happenings for this week, this past week, we did have two homicides the day after thanksgiving and one was a stabbing. one was a shooting. both are still under investigation, both with really good leads. so i'll keep the public and the commission updated on those as those cases develop. one happened on november 29th at 6:25 a.m. a victim was discovered who was suffering from a stab wound. he was located in the area of mission and sycamore, and the victim was transported but declared deceased at the hospital. so no arrests at this time. but again, investigators have some some good leads and are working through those leads. on november 29th at 9:41 p.m, there was a victim located in the unit block of gold street in the bayview suffering from gunshot wounds. officers

rendered aid, as did responding paramedics, but despite these efforts, the victim died of his injuries. multiple casings were located. witnesses provided description of three possible suspects who were in the area. no arrests have been made at this time, but again, a lot of information for investigators to follow up on, so we are optimistic on that one as well. there were three non-fatal shootings during this period, one on the 1200 block of gilman in the bayview. the victim was at home when a subject, accompanied with his roommate entered the entered the house, ransacked the house and shot the victims. no arrests at this time. investigation is ongoing. there was also a case in the northern on the 1200 block of pierce street. the victim suffered from a gunshot wound during an argument. the subject fled the scene. there was actually an arrest has been made on that case. this happened on the 29th at 2:04 p.m, and then on the 600 block of jones street on november 30th at 1 a.m. 1:10

a.m. there was a verbal, there was an argument between the victim and an unknown person in the 600 block of geary. the subject chased the victim to the 600 block of jones, and that's where the shooting happened. the subject ran away on foot and the victim was transported. no. no life threatening injuries there and no arrests at this time. but that is still under investigation. we hope to get some have some progress on on that case. just a couple other things. significant arrests. there was an arrest of a 2023 homicide incident. this this case got a lot of a lot of a lot of public interest. january 12th, 2023 the sfpd sought the public's assistance in locating a missing adult who's name was maxwell george maltzman. he was last seen at his residence in the 900 block of sutter street on friday, january six. on january 23rd, mr. maltzman was located deceased in the bayview district. the investigation by

the sfpd and the medical examiner's office determined the death to be a homicide. the investigation led to the identity of and probable cause to arrest a suspect for this particular case. the suspect is a 19 year old who was a juvenile at the time, so we're not disclosing his name. but on november 29th, the suspect was located and arrested and a search warrant was conducted and served on this particular investigation. so that case has has been filed and ongoing. really good job by our homicide investigators on solving this particular case. a really sad case. we also had an arrest on november 19th of a shooting suspect on a shooting that occurred on the 1100 block of hollister. in this incident, the victim, who was pregnant, sustained a gunshot to her abdomen. the victim was transported and both she and the unborn child survived the shooting. suspect was identifie,

and on november 21st, our investigators located the suspect in daly city and placed the suspect under arrest. search warrant was conducted. evidence was located, including the believed to be firearm used in a crime. the suspect was booked for two two counts of attempted murder and discharging a firearm in a negligent manner. on november 15th, there was a auto burglary that occurred in the 500 block of filbert street, resulting in a loss of very valuable medical equipment. on november 21st, tenderloin officers responded to the 800 block of pacific to meet with the victim, who was tracking the stolen medical equipment with a gps tracker. officers made compact contact with the occupant of a truck that was being tracked located the stolen items. the suspect was detained and the stolen property was returned to the owner. the suspect was later identified as a burglary suspect who was wanted for commercial burglary that occurred on october 13th, 2024, in the 200 block of sutter. that suspect was arrested and booked on felony

burglary charges. and last one that i will report the arrest of a suspect in possession of a loaded ghost gun. this occurred on november 23rd in the tenderloin. officers learned that a wanted subject was in the 200 block of high driving a motorcycle. he was wanted for two out of county felony warrants and had a history of firearm possession. the officers responded to that location, observed the motorcycle that the person had been riding. a motorcycle was parked, and one person that was near the motorcycle was confirmed to be the wanted subject. probable cause was developed to arrest the suspect, and he had a loaded ghost gun in his possession, as well as unfired cartridges and a and firearm accessories. he was determined to be the same person wanted for the warrants. arrested and booked for carrying a loaded firearm in a public place and multiple felony counts. so some really some

really good police work. there's also disruption of cannabis burglaries. over this past week. we've had many of those lately. and officers working the overnight shifts has been very active in trying to identify these individuals. and we've we've broken up several of these before they were able to be carried through. so just want to highlight some of the good work that's being done out there. and that concludes my report for the week. commissioner yee. thank you. can president elias. chief, i just want to congratulate your team and also your, you know, your command staff and all the members throughout this year. i continue to see the crime drop to 30%. as you said, i don't know the historical, but it looks like it's been ten years plus that this seen such low

rates of crime rates. so continue your i guess, the great work that your team is putting together. i get to read the reports, and i'm very happy to see that we are safer in the city. as i also walked the city and also visited throughout the city, i can see the change in there. so thanks again. thanks for all the hard work. i know tremendous dedication by our members and public safety first, thank you chief, your your staff and all the members. thank you. thank thank you commissioner. sergeant, any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item five. please approach the podiu. we say no. i know absolute incompetence. that's i absolute incompetence. it's going to

prevent self control because it's technology. it has no self control. what prevents self control as well is an intelligence obviously meaning ugliness. you see lies, cowardice. all this bloop bloop bloop bloop bloop, no self control with that. what happens then? your life is shorter. i said, i just said eternity is self control. so we can be eternal. but we can at least work at it. so no technology. sorry. yes, we have to do otherwise. we have to do differently with self control. we can do it. who said yes? obviously it's yes. there is no no here. last thing. have you ever investigated? i don't know, it's not. it's not supposed to

be for me to say that the two what i call now slap heads from abbas laws, which are all over the cities and all over the place and out front. i mean, honestly, these guys have no business normally. how do they paid millions of dollars of advertisements to be there? there is something fishy. i don't care. but honestly, these guys, you want to slap their face. even me and i'm pacifist, but at some point too much is too much i think is to get on people's people's nerves. i think that's what exactly what you are doing. yes, yes. okay. have a good night guys. self control i'm trying self control. we'll be fine. good evening again. my last comments. last i

forgot to mention the names of the perpetrators. that was involved in murdering my child. thomas hannibal, a hannibal thomas harris moffat, andrew vedu, jason thomas, anthony hunter, marcus carter. which one is deceased? we talked last time about bringing tipsters to come forth to pay, tipsters to pay to pay them to come forth. i just feel like crying because i'm just reading this and in this dedication to me about the resolution, man, how long, how long have i been waiting for this? even though it's not going to solve nothing but i mean,

it's going to. i'm so ready to go to the board of supervisors and stand there in front of them as well as i do here again, to let them know how much mothers like myself need this. i hope and believe that i will see justice in my lifetime. i will be 65th february 14th and i don't want to get any older. i want to leave this world without knowing that my justice for my child hasn't happened and let alone other mothers and fathers out there who've lost their children. i thank you for being there for me, chief. every one of you. every one of you. i don't even know how to explain it. that you have been at least listening to me. you're not just not paying attention to me. and i appreciate you all. thank you.

that is the end of public comment line item six d.p.a. director's report. discussion report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. hi everybody, i'm sharon wu, i'm with dpa president elias, vice president carter oberstein, commissioner benedicto, commissioner yee, commissioner yanez remotely, as well as the chief. i'm here for director henderson, who is on a prepaid pre-planned vacation. well deserved. i just wanted to give some highlights from our weekly activities report that we submitted last week. we reported about the stop data audit. i think because of the holidays, the department asked for a little bit more time and they've asked until december 18th. we agreed and so we'll have their comments back on the 18th to be

able to provide to the commission afterwards. as part of our continuing education, we will be having a joint training from sfpd on use of force by sergeant crudo. it's a mandatory training for all of our legal team as well as our investigative team. so it's four blocks every other week through the end of january. so we're excited about the opportunity to hear from sergeant crudo. our policy division has been attending the cops dog trainings on emerging issues and will be assessing the gaps in any current sfpd guidance during the month of december. this week, we opened 16 new cases. the top allegation on those cases were officers behaving or speaking inappropriately with a member of the public. and we closed 28 cases. we don't have any items in closed session today. i'm here with senior investigator matt stonesifer. so if there's anything that we can do, let us know. and jermaine jones is

here. since there are so many policy items on tonight's agenda. so unless there's any questions, thanks so much. thank you. two questions with respect to the d.o.j. trainings and review of their materials. you indicated that there were gaps. it would be helpful, perhaps based on your staff attending these trainings. and if they could prepare a report of the gaps that they find with respect to reviewing the d.o.j. policies and our policies and provide that to the commission. absolutely. so that we can we're aware of you know, what the best practices are, what d.o.j. is doing and what sfpd is doing in comparison. absolutely. i know that i had asked acting director jones to provide the he indicated that there was a link on the d.o.j. website with various training. so i asked him to give that to the commission staff so that that can be posted on the commission website for individuals to take a look at. now, the other question i had is

how many cases are over the nine month mark and what the oldest case is that was the number that was frequently reported by director henderson, and i think it's fallen off. so i'm going to have to apologize. i don't know that answer, but i can probably find out. you phoned a friend because look at acting director jones. look at that. they don't trust me here by myself. i know, i see it. see, when he came, there was no question. nobody had questions. he silenced the crowd is cold. so we've had 21 cases open for more than nine months. and 20 of those are told. okay. and the one that's not told. what is the age of that case? i don't have the age of that case, but i can get it to you. any concern of 33 or 4 deadlines being missed? no. and your previous question about the cops d.o.j. link. i've provided it to the commission and i believe they posted it. i have no doubt that you did, mr. jones. i was just filling her in. but thank you. i appreciate it. vice president carter. thank

you, president elias, just one question. you said that sfpd would get back to you on december 18th with responses to the audit report or stop data report. after you receive sfpd's responses, how long before the report is published or sent to the commission? i would imagine it'd be the beginning part of january. i think that we have an opportunity to look at what the department has presented to us and some of the rationale for some of the data, and then we try to reconcile that. so i think it's just a couple of weeks after that. i believe it's beginning of january, and i'm getting a head nod from my phone. a friend and will we get to see the full back and forth between dpa and the department that be an appendix or addendum to the report that i don't know, but i can say that you've asked for it and i will endeavor to

make that happen. great. thank you so much. i think, as i recall, i could chime in as since i've been the audit liaison, i think we don't the back and forth isn't necessarily included as an appendix, but we get the summary of the communications. that's usually included in the report. i phoned another friend, commissioner benedict. no, no, i do know that the that that there is a summary generally, but i was asking something a little bit different, which is whether we'd get the back and forth exchanges that that happen about how the report needs to be amended, if at all, in light of concerns raised. and again, i'm not certain, but i'll check for you. okay. thank you. sure. commissioner benedicto. thank you, president elias. i just wanted to welcome acting director wu back to san francisco at the dpa. she was with the da's office in los angeles for a time. i think your return couldn't be more timely, given that i believe the last had the privilege of serving on the bar association of san francisco's criminal justice

task force with acting director wu, and i believe the last joe we worked on then was joe 10.11. and so to see it's been amended since that time, but to see it up again now, i think is fortuitous timing. so looking forward to your thoughts on that. thank you. thank you sergeant. any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item six. please approach the podium and there is 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 yee thanks. thanks again. president elias. as you know, deborah walker has left the police commission and on to the arts commission. i just want to thank her for our hard work and

commitment to the police department and for public safety throughout the city. i got got a chance to join her and many of these, i guess, activities and award ceremonies. and throughout the time that it was, she was here. so again, congratulations on her new appointment and thanking her for keeping us safe in the city. thank you. thank you, commissioner yee. i too learned of commissioner walker's departure recently, and i think it was a shock. obviously i'm disappointed she left us. a few of us knew about it. i guess. well, i guess i'm not on the vip list, but i appreciate it. so i'm disappointed. i, you know, i think, but, you know, i'm happy she's back on the arts commission where she wants to be. so but we thank you for her service, commissioner benedicto, thank you very much. president elias. i'll echo what commissioner yee said and that

wishing commissioner walker best in her new returned role on the arts commission, as well. she was. we did a number of ride alongs together. she was my designated ride along buddy, though she promises she'll still attend those if i if i ask her. so i'll keep you updated if i if i drag her along as a civilian onto a ride along. did she promise to come back if we want her at these meetings? i don't know. we'll see about that. i don't know about that. just a few items from my report, i think. just to note, a few items are going to be up for discussion. i know there's i'm grateful for the department for calendaring the discussion on the update of the juvenile rebooking program. i know that commissioner janez has taken a lot of leadership on that, and we're looking forward to moving that forward. i know related to that juvenile booking diversion program is the d.o.j. 7.01 that we expect to get in january? chief, i know there was the last time we spoke. you were reviewing the letter that was sent by a number of community groups, and there were a number of edits there that required sort of you and your team to take a look. do you have an

anticipated time of when you'll have a response to that? i see, like we can bring director lacey up as well. yeah, i there were some areas, i think some legal areas where there was disagreement between us and whoever, you know, analyzed the legal issues there. so we'll just respond with what our disagreements are on those areas. and there was there was some agreement. so and i'll, i'll direct the question. but we'll get back to you. i'll get back to you on exactly when i mean, i guess my question is we'd love to see that early next year. do you think it would be feasible to get. because i appreciate what we expect is a written response with here's where we agree, here's where we still disagree. and that way the public and the members of the community can have that in advance of the discussion. do you think by december 20th is doable? early next year is definitely doable. december 20th, i will follow up with you because i think i mean, i know about some of the issues. i

don't know all the issues, but early next year, by the time we reconvene, that's definitely doable. okay. i mean, i would i would if we could try to get it before then. so that way because if you know, if the response comes early next year, then by the time that can be sort of ingested by the community like that, that sort of pushes everything further back. so if we could have it before the do you think we could get a response both looking to you and to director lacey by the end of this calendar year, i'm going to go on a limb and say, yes, i don't think it's going on a limb, but yeah, we can do that. okay. i appreciate that to that way over the holidays, we can all have some lovely reading and return in january to calendar that. thank you for that. and then also we have 10.11 up and we'll discuss that when we get to it. all right. that's all for me. commissioner janez. thank you, president elias. thank you, chief, for the report. and i have a brief update on some of the dgos that i've been working

on. the 5.20 language access has been making steady progress. i feel we've definitely been able to work through some of the more challenging conversations to get to a point of drafting a tgo that will reflect the change in the changes to the new language access ordinance in san francisco and also improves our document as far as how to ensure the community needs language access. support is obtaining that. we have one more work group in a couple of weeks, and that should culminate that process, and we are looking forward to that draft being sent to the commission. really appreciate your support on that. your team has been great. hitesh is i think, you know, getting

traction in his position as far as managing all these groups. my next update is around the community policing vigil. thank you, chief, for following up with ac lozar and captain parra. we've had a couple of conversations about some of the questions that i raised regarding metrics and data. i do want to ask that we agendize community policing and the conversation around data collection, and an analysis of what kind of data will be submitted. moving forward, so that we do have a baseline to be able to measure our department's improvement or successes based on actual numbers or inputs and outputs. and it was a little revealing, chief, and i would like to ask you just to comment on what will be happening when i raise the question around, you

know, the community policing strategic plan speaks a lot about restorative justice efforts. i know that the community engagement division is expected to house the pre-booking and any juvenile servicing efforts or system collaboration efforts, but when i raised this issue to ac lozar, it seemed to come to them as a little bit of a surprise that we were engaging and had been in this process for quite some time. as far as working with the community referral center to create an mou to establish a pre book program. so i'd like to get a better sense from you of what would be put in place to be able not only to help community partners continue to evolve the pre-booking program, but vis a

vis systems to collect data, which seems to be a little bit. i'm going to just be, you know, honest and say sufficient, you know, in the ability to systemically collect, analyze and report on and then, you kno, present this information to the commission, one of the questions that i wrote out, that i still have not received a response to from either yourself or the community engagement team, is we haven't received actual annual reports for the community policing, which is part of our dgo. and so i wanted to get a better sense of what we will be doing to maintain compliance with some of the expectations that we have in the current pgo on community policing. so we have a captain now who is the commanding officer of community engagement. that's captain para

aaron pera. so they are responsible and will be moving forward with compliance. it starts with getting the community engagement strategies in the department wide, which every entity in the department has to submit a community engagement strategy that process is i think they're doing at the end of last month. so we are going through those right now from that point forward. then it's compliance with the dgo and whatever is in the strategies. you know, some of them are more elaborate than others. i've seen many of them from last year, but that process definitely is being taken seriously. captain pera and his team are assembling those strategies. and again, the dgo calls for every entity in the department to have a community engagement plan. so some units that are not outward facing units, they still have to have something in terms of community engagement per that general order. and that is

happening. the other part of this is we do need to work on how we're going to sustain the basically the checks to make sure that these, these these strategies are being implemented and followed. that is a labor intensive, labor intensive piece of this policy. when that policy was written, we had many more people in community engagement. we've had to basically strip this unit to bare bones, but they are working very hard. so being that we're building up the neighborhood safety teams, we gave a presentation on that a couple of weeks ago. last month. anyway, we do believe that with the hires that we have in the pipeline, we will be able to do the things that we need to do to make sure we're complying with that dgo but it's a work in progress, and it does go to staffing. we've hired some non-sworn people to stabilize that unit. we've hired some prop f9, 60s. they are in place and we still have a few other people

with that are in the pipeline that we hope we can bring on, but that's the strategy. in order to comply, we got to get the people in place to actually do these compliance checks and audit and do checkups and make sure that these strategies are being followed and implemented. now, do you have any comment on the metrics that i had emailed and requested that we discussed for consideration as far as tracking mechanisms, haven't received the response and don't necessarily have a timeline for when will either be engaging in a conversation with the full commission through a presentation, or will this negotiation take place kind of the way that we've been doing it? by meeting with the community engagement division leads, captain parra is, i think, a great solution for this team. he has some great ideas. i think that he is definitely

committed to utilizing the satisfaction surveys. i understand that there's going to be a qr code that is going to be launched pretty soon. that will help us hopefully collect that feedback and be able to aggregate and then analyze it o. but in that, in that same vein, you know, we don't necessarily i haven't gotten a commitment or a response to about what specifically we will be introducing to as far as the expectations for what, what measures and what objectives and what outcomes we're going to be actually tracking, in addition to the language that's in the strategic plan, you're referring to the strategic plan, commissioner, or the dgo, the requirements in the dda. well, , i'm referring to incorporating some of the metrics that are

outlined in the strategic plan into the dgo so that on a standard basis, instead of having, you know, different units kind of generating plans that are, you know, sometimes very limited, sometimes very kind of robust, and having a baseline that we if we were measuring either, you know, satisfaction surveys based on people's experiences with the department that that is happening across the board and that we're using those to inform how we're going to improve our services, which is not necessarily happening right now, is my understanding. i believe that dgo was passed by the commission and is in meet and confer. so i don't know that we're going to be able to do that in the dgo. however, what we have done is we have we have a partnership with emerson university. they have done surveying for us. we've now i

think we just got one published a couple of months ago. i think it was in the end of october, during october. so a lot of the questions that you were referring to was done by emerson. it was a survey. i don't remember how many people they actually reached out to across the city, but it's a city wide survey and it's a whole list of results about satisfaction, community engagement, those types of things. so that was a part of the actually that was part of the crea initiative to have an academic partner do that type of work for us, and that's we think at least it's revealing in terms of what the sentiments are across the city on our policing, our community policing efforts, our community engagement efforts. and there are some other things in there too, but that's been done. that was done a couple of months ago. we just got the results back and i don't know if it's on our website yet, but it will be posted on our website if it's not already. and

i saw those results. i mean, they're for one year. they're not necessarily embedded or incorporated into the annual plans. and that's what i'm looking for. that's what i think. we just need to sit down and have a conversation with the full commission about whether that those metrics are going to be incorporated into the annual reports, into the community policing plans. i mean, i think that there needs to be some level of data collection that informs our practices, not just having a outside partner do an evaluation, you know, a spot check, maybe once every couple of years. and that sits on a bookshelf because as far as i understand that analysis and those outcomes and the report that was generated by that university wasn't necessarily used to inform and develop the current annual plans. but i hope that we could get that conversation rolling early in january so that we can have a

robust process of developing a community policing plan that actually, you know, embeds information that we can use to improve our efforts. my last question is about a sergeant youngblood. a couple weeks ago forwarded a document that i had requested around the live monitoring, reporting form. and i remember when we had when this item first came out and we had a conversation about how this information was going to be conveyed to community partners. when, you know, whether it's an officer or a sergeant or anybody that's going to be requesting access to their cameras, i felt like i was pretty adamant that i wanted it to be clear that those people receiving those documents should know that it was an optional process. and when i

look at the form that was sent to me by sergeant youngblood, it is not very clear to me that this document reads and is interpreted by people receiving it as an option. and so i'd like to get your thoughts on how we can improve that effort. so that community members who receive a request from police for access to their cameras can, can understand that there is an option to participate or not. well, our officers or sergeants or whoever is asking me, it is a ask, not a tale or a demand to for individuals to either share their cameras or share their footage or not. so, i mean, i it's consensual and some people say, yes, some people don't say yes. so i mean, what is it that

exactly that you would like to see in this? just so i'm clear, i mean, i can generate a suggestion. i mean, i think making it clear at the outset of this or in big bold letters that this is something that's optional. the only thing here that makes it seem as if a person has an option is it says that after they've either agreed to give permission to monitoring, it just says, i am giving this written permission to these officers freely and voluntarily, without any threats or promises having been made. it no other section or anywhere on this form says a person has the option to, you know, authorize or reject the request. right, i will i will send some some language. i don't know if the other commissioners have seen

the document, if it was shared with everyone. i think we could crowdsource some language to be able to make sure that people that are receiving businesses, especially with language, you know, bilingual staff. i personally, yes, no, i think i like that suggestion of you crafting language in written form so that we can see it, and then having it distributed to the commission so we can all take a look. great. and then is this isn't this, we agendize this item so that we can then discuss it. perfect. do do we have a date? no. we'll get a date okay. we're going to get a date. so agenda okay. and that is my report i appreciate your time. thank you. commissioner yanez. sergeant, for any member of the public that has public comment regarding line item seven, please approach the podium. and there is no public

comment. line item eight presentation on sfpd's disciplinary review board findings and recommendations. second quarter. sergeant, sorry to interrupt you. can we take out of order item 14, please? sure. line item 14 discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 1011. body worn cameras for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law. discussion and possible action. thank you. who's presenting on this body worn camera? so we have a couple people here. i'll open it up. i don't know if it's lieutenant beauchamp here. lloyd austin. okay. yeah. so we'll get we'll get started and i'll open it up. we also have captain ahern here from our tactical unit. so 1011, the. the dgo that the department has presented. sorry, chief. do you want me to wait? can. how

long is it going to take to get them here? do you want me to take item ten out of order? yeah. we can. can we do that? so, i mean, can we get them her? it is agendized for tonight. so, sergeant, can we call? i'll do ten. let's take ten and then we'll take 14. all right. line item ten. presentation and discussion on commission. drafted resolution regarding sfpd's reward policy discussion and possible action. go ahead. vice president carter overstone sure. so we've already heard from miss brown twice this evening in her capacity as public commenter. this this resolution is really about miss brown and her advocacy on behalf on behalf of her son and on on behalf of every family who had a

family member taken from them and whose homicide is unsolved. a few months ago, this commission held a hearing in response to her concerns. i want to thank dpa, and in particular jermaine jones, for his role in collecting information on what other jurisdictions are doing as it relates to their homicide reward policies. dpa sent out a survey to several jurisdictions and did a lot of independent research and i want to thank lieutenant saunders from sfpd for presenting on sfpd's current policy and the outcomes we've had in the course of learning about best practices from other jurisdictions. it became clear that the commission was not in the best position to make the necessary changes because our homicide reward policy is

enacted, was enacted by the board of supervisors in the administrative code. so this resolution asks that the board make certain amendments to san francisco's local laws that reflect some of the best practices that we learned about here in this commission. i just want to say, i mean, miss brown is here at every single meeting, and i think it's just it's inspiring to see the way that she never gives up and has managed really all by herself, to hold an entire city accountable. this is one first step, a small but important step in that direction. and i just wanted to read one paragraph from the resolution before we vote on it. this resolution is dedicated to miss paulette brown, whose son, aubrey abacus junior, was tragically murdered

on august 14th, 2006 and whose killers have never been brought to justice. miss brown attends every police commission meeting. she speaks with both vulnerability and unflinching clarity about the wrenching pain of her loss and her hope that her son's murder might one day be solved. she has been relentless in her efforts to prod this commission into action, not only on her son's behalf, but for every family affected by an unsolved murder. today, we recognize her advocac, courage and commitment to holding this commission and sfpd accountable. and so with that, i will make a motion to adopt this resolution. commissioner benedicto, thank you very much. president elias, i think this resolution is exceptionally well crafted and long overdue, and i want to thank the vice president for his leadership on it. i also want to echo the recognition of

miss brown for her tireless advocacy, both for aubrey as well as for so many other victims of unsolved homicides. if you've ever gone to any of her her healing circle events, she always makes sure to allow space for other victims and other other families of unsolved victims and i've had the privilege to do that. and like i said, i think this this is long overdue. i think i've had i don't recall if i've shared this story at, at commission, but i first met miss brown long before i was on the commission when i was happened to be seated near her when she was doing what she does, even to this day, almost ten years ago. and i was reporting on the then blue ribbon panel on transparency and accountability and fairness. it was my first time i was a young lawyer that was very nervous to suddenly have been asked to speak before this commission, and out of nowhere, my nose started bleeding and having never even met miss brown, she reached over and offered me a tissue and told me not to be

nervous. and i think about that moment whenever she speaks and whenever i think about the path that led me here. and she's been relentless and tireless and has spoken before many commissions, but unfortunately not enough has been done. and so i really do. i'm so glad that the vice president, carter robertson, has taken on this project and has crafted this resolution that i think will move it forward. i think, like the street renaming, this is not justice. this resolution. it's not the end, but what it is, is it reiterates a promise that this commission and the members of this commission, this community, stand with you, miss brown, and will continue to stand with you as we move this process forward. so thank you to the vice president. thank you to miss brown. i will happily second the resolution. chief. thank you. president. i just i so let me first say definitely i, i am in favor of this in concept i do would request and i don't know commissioner or vice president

carter whether you had any input from the department on this. but there are some, some things in the language that i think can be be shored up. there's a couple of questions that, you know, that i have because as i read the ordinance, there are not in any particular order, but i don't believe the current ordinance precludes a tipster from getting a reward if they have a criminal history of any type of history of crimes being committed. but what it does state is that a person claiming the reward cannot be involved in the crime, that the reward is being paid on. so i don't i just would like to work with you on with, you know, subject matter experts on the department on this language. i do think that maybe some of this can be strengthened. the tipster part, some cities have had issues with, you know, paying tipsters. i don't know if there was any district attorney involvement in at least consultation in this,

but i would strongly recommend that before this moves forward, that that be a part of the discussion to make sure that these, these, these recommendations that might be in an ordinance or work with the prosecution of the case. so that's that would be my ask. i definitely support this in spirit. when we had this hearing last time, i definitely you were asked and i think you gave me an opportunity to speak on that. there is a problem with the reluctance. people want to remain anonymous, and even when they remain anonymous, it's still difficult. so i do think the spirit of this is great, but i do. we would like to help on it, and i think we can help with some of the language. so i did reach out to the department about this and i think we can chat about that offline. i think it makes sense. but what i would say is that because this is directive and hortatory to the board, any concerns that you have about the particulars about how it should be implemented are

best directed to the board? i think that that your your point about anonymity and criminal background is exactly right, and is how i read the current ordinance with the ordinance also does though. is it vests tremendous discretion in the chief of police in deciding when to pay out a, an award. and so this would constrain that discretion and say that, for example, standing alone, having a criminal history would not be cannot be the sole reason for denying an award. it wouldn't amend the separate provision that you referenced about taking part in the crime. but your point is well taken, and i think that the board of supervisors is now the appropriate venue to vent that concern. and so i would ask that we vote on it tonight. i had a question, i guess my concern is, well, first

let me say thank you for drafting and putting this on the agenda. the resolution, it obviously took a lot of work and i appreciate it. and i second what you and commissioner benedicto are saying with respect to miss brown's advocacy and her being here every day and fighting this fight, the one concern that i do have, and i'm wondering if we can add language to safeguard, to have safeguards in place against false information and allegations based on some of these rewards, because i think that we have had instances where people have been falsely accused based on tips and the city has had to pay out millions of dollars for people innocent people, going to prison for long periods of time. and so my request is that we add language to provide some safeguards for that in this resolution. go ahead. i think

those concerns make sense. i don't know if we need to. i think my instinct is right now with the vice president to still vote, given that this is, as we've learned, this is not something that is, we're not drafting the ordinance where we are. and so we're you know, this is it has three it looks like that's that's what we're saying are these three things only. and i'm saying that we need to add one more to ensure that there's a safeguard. because the fact that people are can go to prison based on innocent people can go to prison based on certain information. i think we there needs to be something in there that recognizes that and puts a safeguard to make to make sure that we have extra protection for those instances, because the worst thing and police officers have told me the worst thing is having innocent people go to prison. and so i just want something in here that reflects that is my request. i, i have to say, i'm just a little surprised

by the suggestion. so your new concern is that if i understand it, changing the criteria for when an award is issued will somehow lead to false allegations, and that those false allegations, despite all of the protections in our criminal justice system, will somehow result in an innocent person being convicted of a crime. is that the concern? i don't think it's a new concern, and i don't think that the protections that we have obviously aren't enough, because innocent people still go to prison for very long periods of time. and we know that because we've seen well, we know that. but the question is, will this cause it? well, well, i'm saying that we're putting a resolution to the board of supervisors, and why can't we include another pinpoint number four that would address that situation or provide something to address that situation? because the way that it looks like while i

understand what you're saying, which is the ordinance has all of these provisions and it may not be applicable, and it may certain provisions may not be applicable, and certain ones may the way it reads is that these are the three things that we want and the only three things that we want. and i'm just saying that i would like something in addition to it. i, you know, that's what i'm saying. so and i would i would say this, miss brown has waited for this a really long time. and, commissioner, you've been aware that i've been working on this for a really long time. i for you to raise this for the first time at a live meeting. isn't that when we're supposed to discuss it? well, we've discussed this issue at a live meeting, for example, in in may. we've i've given updates about this issue on a monthly basis. the opportunity to weigh in. you know, there's been multiple opportunities to weigh in. and

frankly, i don't just as a substantive matter, i'm just not sure that your concern makes any sense whatsoever that that somehow changing the criteria for a reward would by itself lead to false convictions. it's just not particularly. i mean, let me ask you, is there has there been an instance that you're aware of in the united states of specifically a cash reward leading to false tip that then that false tip was the but for cause of someone being wrongfully convicted? is this a documented problem? it is a problem where people come forward and they have received benefit, whether it be monetary rewards, other benefits. i'm providing police officers information that accused people, which would result in them going to prison. we had one here a couple instances in san francisco resulting in millions of dollars being paid out. but this is the first for a tipster reward that. let me finish. so

you writing the actual resolution with these three points we receive that friday? yes. we've had different discussions, but this is the first time in writing i've seen it. so all right. okay, but i understand your concern i okay, i think we've heard each other and i my position is i think we should vote on this today. and i think president elias, if you have a concern about that, then i think the board of supervisors is a place to express it. commissioner brown yeah, i was going to say that i think at a high level here. i mean, i appreciate that this commission is conscientious and detail oriented, but we're looking at here as a general set of principles to forward to the board of supervisors to begin what will likely be a long process to change the administrative code. there will be many other opportunities for individual commissioners, for the chief, for dpa, for the commission as a whole to weigh in as this goes through the legislative process, which i truly hope it does. you know, this might not even be if this continues to move forward, this might not even be the last. and i expect that it wouldn't be the last resolution on this issue.

as we've seen with many issues that the commission takes on when it's outside of our purview and we're sort of forwarding things to other bodies, we can have more than one. so you know, i expect, you know, hopefully that this will get taken seriously by the board. i spoke to miss brown about this before. and if a member of the board of supervisors writes an ordinance that then we review, we might pass a resolution supporting that specific ordinance. once there's legislative text, at that point, we might raise concerns about false convictions, or we might disagree with the ordinance altogether. as it's written. so i think this is, you know, as a step to get the ball rolling, appreciating that there are concerns, what we're what we're voting on today is a general set of principles. and making sure that the legislative branch of the city and county of san francisco is aware that one of its commissions wants them to take this issue seriously. and on that, i think we do have general agreement. so that's al, i think, why i'm comfortable moving forward with a vote today. you want to have additional to be complete so that we have everything in it. absolutely. i agree, if you're saying it's just one like, what's the difference whether we vote on it today or we put it

over to january and then have additional information or additional points here in the resolution that make it more robust and make it more expansive. like, i don't understand. i mean, i just think that we're we're here. it was agendized, it was noted for the public. and i think that while there while there are ways that are discussed to make a stronger resolution, that doesn't sway me all the way to not voting on it tonight is all okay, but i just want it to be the strongest. if we're going to put it forward. it's the best, our best foot forward, not let's just do this one. and then there's more to come. i think there's something to be said for having it for the new board when it convenes in january. and since it's our last meeting of the calendar year. commissioner yee, thank you very much. president elias. i sort of echo your concern to you and making sure that this resolution is complete. we don't want to come back again and then redo the resolutions or there's, you know, changes to it. as president cindy elias get it done right, making sure that we push to the board that it's this

this another meeting instead of coming back so that that's my concern and making sure that making sure that we don't get false tips that leads to incarceration of people that are that are innocent. that's my concern, too, is the most important. thank you. okay. commissioner yanez has his hand raised? no. okay. sergeant. webex. no motion. any motion in a second. i got motion, okay. if any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding, excuse me, line item ten, please approach the podium. i am very disappointed in this. people have been accused of

false information way before this. what does it take for you guys to for you to pass this? let the board of supervisors deal with it. how long am i going to be coming here to do this? just like he said. this has been talked about. it's been $0 paid out to anyone in a decade. and mothers like myself that have been coming here, i'm not. you don't actually have to do it for me. do it for all of us. all of us. just because i've been the person to come here every wednesday. i'm not just doing this for me. we understand that other people might be. of course you're going to. i mean, nobody's going to be falsely. there's no one coming forth now who's coming forth now? it's been almost 20 years. who's coming forth, and there's a $250,000 reward and no one's

going for it now. so why can't you pass this and help mothers like myself? no one's going to get hurt. that's the fact. i should be scared. you know, we need this done. i am very disappointed. i am very disappointed. i don't know what else to say. this needs to happen for us. i've been telling everybody about this. i've been telling other mothers about this. and for me to go back and tell them that it's not going to happen, it's not right. half of you have children, half of you have families. let this not wait until it hits our home, and then we want to pass something. let's do it now and we can work on the stuff, even when it goes to the board of supervisors, i still have to go and fight. i still

have to go and talk to them. i still have to do it either way, i'm hurting right now. these are the holidays and we need this. we need this. us mothers need this. please don't do this. please, i'm begging you know, you're absolutely right, miss brown. we're going to pass this. we're going to take a few minutes. we're going to go move to another item. we're going to pass this and then come back to it. because we're going to take a break. i'm going to confer with the city attorney. and then i'm going to are we passing it? we're going to pass it just for a second. we're going to hold the other item. body worn cameras deal with that real quick. and then we're going to come. i'm going to take a five minute recess. i'm going to confer with the city attorney, and then i'm going to pull it back. bring it back. okay. please. thank you sergeant. line item 14 discussion and possible action to approve revised department general order 1011 body worn cameras for the

department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units, as required by law. discussion and possible action. okay, should we get started? yeah. okay. thank you. thank you, sergeant youngblood. so we have i think most of our team here. we'll go ahead and get started. i think lieutenant beauchamp probably is joining. it's probably in route. i'll kick this off and just want to say here to present just the department's position on dgo 1011. we have attorney stephen betts, we have captain jim ahern from our tactical unit, myself, and we'll have lieutenant chris beauchamp, who will be joining us shortly, but we can get started. and if lieutenant beauchamp doesn't make it, we can cover his part as well. how i like to do our presentation. i'll start with this. i think most of everything in this dgo there, there appears to be at least some common ground, if not agreement on commissioner or

vice president. carter presented a basically a dgo with some revisions in it, and i want to just focus on that because i think that's the point that the department wants to present on three of the i think it might be the three revisions that we don't agree with the position. so how we will do this for the sake of time, i'll take the first two. and that's on the disagreements. basically, the revision in the package is the addition of on page three when making a decision or briefing in a command post with vice president carter, that would be a required activation of body worn camera. the second thing was striking the language about the sensitive tactical discussions in being an exception to deactivate that language is being stricken, and vice president carter stone's version. i will take that as

well. and the third one is the interview. i and captain ahern will take that one. and then the third one with the interview piece on officer involved shootings or criminal investigations, administrative investigations. there's some language that we disagree with and attorney betts will take that one. so i'll just start just real briefly on what the department's positions are. there's the reason that we wanted to exempt the command posts and briefings from requiring activation or multiple fold, but it starts with this. you know, the public safety and the safety of our officers should weigh against recording, you know, these these types of discussions, command posts by nature, are meant to be a forum where officers and their supervisors and the incident commanders can have candid discussions, can discuss issues

before decisions are made, and it is, in my opinion, problematic to expect in a command post that some of these command posts are, you know, ten, 12 hours or longer. i've been on command posts that have been 20 hours long to have a body worn camera rolling throughout these discussions. number one is unnecessary. number two, it doesn't serve in the public's best interest. you know, there's the bureau of justice assistance, which is a doj department, has a motto of body worn camera on their website. and in that motto, body worn camera, there's some basically some recommended language and there's some notes. and one of the notes that i want to point out when it comes to that issue specifically talks about interaction between officers will be disrupted when they know that every word they say is recorded in a command post situation. these decisions and these discussions are are

meant to be candid. they're meant they go back and forth. things change. futures change, decisions change. there. it does not serve the public's interest to record that. and i think it would have a chilling effect on things that need to happen in a command post. i've been in many of them through my career, body worn cameras are meant to be transparent with interactions with the public. that's really the spirit that got us to body worn cameras. tactical discussions, briefings, homicide briefings. officer involved, shooting briefings, those types of things. it does not serve the public's interest. and i think it's counterproductive to the public's interest. and i think it puts the officers in a disadvantage when those decisions are then potentially made public. the next part of this is the language that talks about striking the ability to turn off the camera when tactical language is being or tactical sensitive situations, and the department's recommended version of this, this policy is

not meant to not share routine calls for service. we release that information all the time. two officers are in route to a call. they're talking about their tactics. they're talking about their plan, and they get involved in something and it ends up in an officer involved shooting. we release that routinely. that's not what this is about. this is about the high level tactical events, barricaded suspects, you know, hostage situations, active shooters, the things that are described in the memo that that speaks to critical incidents. we specifically kept that language consistent with that dgo. so there's consistent language about what is an extraordinary incident or critical incident. and i would like captain ahern to speak on this. but the bottom line on this is we feel very strongly that the ability for this information to be made public or get in the hands of

defendants suspects, puts our officers lives in danger. and i personally have had people that i know very dearly shot in entries one survived, one did not. this is serious stuff and we cannot risk this information getting into the hands of the public. how we do entries, what equipment we use, why we make the decisions that we make it does not serve anybody's interests for the public to have any potential to get our playbook on these type of tactical situations. the cameras are on the officers that are making entry. the cameras are on anybody that is operational. but these types of administrative and tactical decisions should not be recorded. we should not give anybody the ability to tap into what we do and why we do it. in terms of these types of tactics, i would like captain ahern to talk a little bit about this. thanks, chief. good evening. i mean, you guys are

aware we do go to the same locations on search warrants, you know, for cvs or for homicide follow up investigations. if our actions were documented, the steps were taken in a playbook scenario and then provided to the defendant when we were prosecuting on one crime, and then we're back there for the second crime, who basically have he would know exactly what we're doing. it'd be like, i don't know, like a the water boy. i don't know if you guys saw that one with football. football. right. and the coach had the playbook. right. and he's watching the playbook and he's just making the calls. it's a little different than knowing tactics and then knowing the order of tactics and why we're taking those tactics. and that's what giving all that information the sensitive information like why we made those decisions, they might know we're going to breach a door, but they might not know

why we breached the certain door we did for that location. and that's that's the concern. so and that's why it's very narrow cut out in this one. thank you. thank you captain. and just to before we move to attorney betts, i know the working group had sfpd members on it. that working group process is meant to bring these recommendations, if you will, to the department, and then they go to concurrence. this is one thing from day one when this policy first came to concurrence, that i disagreed with. and this is no disrespect to anybody working group. i just flat out disagree with it. i've had to go through those doors. officers are going through those doors every day and we cannot afford to take the risk with our officers lives. for what? i mean, whose interest is this in also looking at dgos or body worn camera policies throughout the state. and this is just the

major cities in california. nobody is required to record tactical sensitive information. i have sacramento police department's policy. i have la county sheriff's, i have lapd's i have san jose. i have oakland, san diego, some of them expressly prohibit these conversations from being recorded. some of them are silent on it. but nobody requires it. and i think there's a good reason for that. i know we throw the words best practices around quite a bit. i think it is a best practice to protect the safety of our officers by not allowing this type of information to get made publicly available, and there's a reason for that. so i just ask that when the commission is considering this, that these, these discussions weigh on on this decision, because in my opinion, it does not serve the best interest of the community, the victims, the people that we're there to protect, to have this information, possibly

disclosable. and i know in the working group meetings, i was told that what came out of this is, well, we can redact it. we don't have the luxury when we have 48 hours to turn this case around and get it to the district attorney's office, we have a hard enough time redacting bwc footage as it is the notion that we can go through ten hours, 12 hours of video and redact all this stuff and have these discussions with the tac people to know what to redact. it's a recipe for failure, and it puts our officers at risk. so for those reasons, we strongly, strongly urge that this be allowed to stand in the policy as we have submitted it. and with that, attorney betz will present the last piece of this. good evening everyone. just some quick comments about the administrative interview process. you have two options in front of you or two proposals. one is the initial statement process and one is what i call the full interview process. this is just, of course, about the administrative investigation following a critical incident.

we don't do the criminal investigation. so it's just about the administrative part. and for that reason, really, i think that the initial statement process fits the administrative investigation better. and the reason really is that the nature of administrative investigations is necessarily more adversarial. you're compelled to be there. you have to answer pointed questions under threat of termination. and unless you're a witness, just a witness. you are accused of misconduct. so that creates a more adversarial atmosphere. and the problem is, if we don't allow the officer to watch until after you've gone through a full interview, you can't use the video in the course of the interview. so which is more like a deposition or an interrogation or a cross-examination? if you have a wayward witness, you want to be able to kind of confront that witness with the best evidence you have. if you have a lot of ums, i don't remembers, i don't recalls. you want to be able to use that evidence in the interview. of course, the way it's written with the full

interview process, you can still do that, but you kind of got to go through a full interview, stop and then redo the interview over again. it's a bit of an administrative hassle that i don't think is necessary because we still are. we're mindful of the concern that we don't want officers to have to watch the video and then give a statement entirely. we are we think that the initial statement process requires the officer to commit to the core facts of the incident before they're allowed to watch it. and i think that addresses the issue of memory implantation or it balances the concerns. obviously, there's different ways you could do this, but for administrative investigations, the nature of them is different than criminal investigations. and we think that it is more helpful for us the nature of these people to have the video in the course of it to, to for the benefit of our investigators. so that's that we ask you that you adopt that process. vice president carter oversaw. thank you, president elias. i just want to correct

one thing the chief said at the outset, because he characterized the alternative version that's on the agenda as as my edits, i want to be very clear. these are not my edits. i didn't come up with any of these edits. these edits reflect the consensus. the unanimous consensus of the individuals who are in the working group who met four or 5 or 6 times 2 to 3 hours each meeting, and included the subject matter experts from sfpd who have the highest degree of expertise in the subject matter that this dgo covers. chief scott, did, i think, a pretty admirable thing, which is that he supported requiring all members in the police department, including command staff, wearing body worn camera. i think that that's a welcome reform, and i think all the

benefits that we've seen for body worn camera, for the public and for officers, all those benefits and the transparency and accountability that come with it, should apply with equal force to command staff. and i want to give chief credit for supporting that aspect of the policy change. but what happened after that is that by all accounts, there are many members of our command staff who are not thrilled about the prospect of having to wear body worn cameras because they don't think that the same rules that apply to line level officers should apply to them. and there was an effort after this lengthy and thorough and deliberative working group process, there is an effort to carve loopholes into the policy to weaken it. and the question before us tonight is, why would we discard the consensus of every working group member? why

would we discard the expertise of the officers and lieutenants who were in that room, who understand this the best? and the i think the main issue, the one that was discussed most at length, was this issue of tactical deactivation, where if, i guess, as it was described, high level tactics that are truly top secret, that you wouldn't want the public to be in possession of, it allows officers to deactivate their body worn camera, while those tactics are being discussed in the midst of a critical incident. again, every subject matter expert from sfpd in the room said, we don't want it. we don't need it. there was a panel of three patrol officers invited in. they said, we do not want it. we do not need it. so the need is not coming from the people who understand and know this best. now, if there is truly highly sensitive material discussed involving tactics that

we would not want disclosed to the public, we already have a remedy. we do it every day. we redact. we redact after the fact. the problem with allowing redaction or with redact allowing deactivation live in a critical incident is first, it encumbers officers with the additional duty of tapping in and out of their body worn camera in the midst of a very intense and volatile situation where all of their attention should be focused on what matters most. but second, it's just ripe for abuse. the way that it's drafted, it it allows different people will have different views about what constitutes tactics, and we will never know. that's the most important part. we will never know if the deactivation was legitimate or not, because there will be no recording of it. and that's the problem with this. if it's abused the public will

never know. there are no so there's no benefits to this because you can redact it and there is just a slew of downsides. and that's why every officer in that room said they didn't think that we should have this in our policy. i think that this commission should follow their lead because there hasn't been any sound basis presented tonight with respect to the speaker so far for deviating from their recommendations. chief, i just want to clarify a few things. vice president carter just spoke about. the first thing is command posts are not the same as operational. i only addressed the tactical deactivation just now. if you want me to address the other. i was trying not to be breathless here, but if you want me to tick off the others, i'm happy to as well. well, yeah, no, i

understand, but i think what you said might lead people to believe that there's this. you know, fluid thing happening in a command post discussion, and officers will get confused and forget to turn their cameras on and off. that that is the furthest thing from the truth. so i just want to i just want to clarify that. okay. second thing, the officers that were in the working group, particularly the patrol officers, nothing changes for them. they still are required to turn their cameras on their discussions as they're going to a call, if they're going to a hot call, whether it be a person with a gun or whatever, nothing changes for them. those this is not what this applies to. this applies to high level tactical situations that the swat team, the tactical unit, the specialists are involved in, where we have to make decisions about entries, about why we enter, what we're going to enter, just as the captain said, why we're going in this door, this window, not that door or that window. that information is not the people that are on the line that are actually making the entries. those cameras are rolling in on.

but the discussions to get us there and the why we need to do it this way, this is what the department is protesting. so i and that's a huge distinction. the second thing is discovery rules apply. we don't get to redact this information before we give it over to the district attorney's office. you know, that happens once once it's in the hands of the arrested perso, it's out. we don't get to pull it back. we don't get to go back and say, yeah, the public redaction can happen, but this is how things get out. and then when things get out, they get out and they get out and they go viral. being in this business as long as i have, we've seen people practicing tactics of how to defeat the police. why would we give them and why would we give anybody an opportunity to do it? and i and i want to reemphasize what i just said when i understand that some

people don't trust the police, they don't trust that we're telling the truth. they don't trust that we are being honest in what we do. but that curiosity should not ever outweigh putting an officer's life in danger and putting the public's life. but, chief, i just want to be very clear because you keep raising this, there is 100% agreement that information that is truly sensitive tactics that would compromise our tactical operations are put in officer's life at risk should never be released to the public. and so i just want to be clear, that's not what we're debating. that can what i'm saying is that can be redacted, that we should not make it the decision of individual officers in the field in the moment, to decide what qualifies as sensitive tactical information. we can redact it after the fact, just as we do every single day in this department. when we're redacting bwc, we already have the capacity to do it. so under the proposal that, again, the subject matter expert supported,

there would be no risk of this information being leaked to the public. i just want to say one other aspect of this that i think is just an issue of fundamental fairness about why why we need the bwc on which is the commission hears discipline cases. obviously, these are all outside the public's view. you know, chief, you you've seen this dynamic as well. it's not uncommon that we get a case where an officer is being charged with misconduct and sometimes serious misconduct, and the officer says, well, i did x, y, z because i was directed to do it by my superio. and, you know, we sometimes notice that the superior is not being charged with anything. and the reason is that there is no record of the alleged order being given to the officer. and

as a commission, we're put in a position of having to decide whether, you know, we're going to hold someone accountable for following a direct order, which failure to follow it would be itself insubordination. i don't think that that's fair to the officer, and i think that that's another reason why we need the body worn camera rolling in all of these situations, including when higher level, you know, command staff, personnel are laying out what, you know, the plan is going to be just to just to clarify, commissioner, we have never had a case in my time in this commission involving the issues that i'm speaking about, because those tactical discussions between officers responding to a call or we're not talking about routine calls where everybody's body worn camera, we're talking about the incidents, the type of incidents are defined. and we have never

had that case in this commission since i've been here. i have never seen that. and the bottom line on these critical incidents, when an incident, a critical incident has been declared, the incident commander is responsible, period. the incident commander is responsible for what happens in these incidents, whether it's on tape or whether it's not that when you raise your hand and say, i'm now running this incident, you are responsible for what happens. and the point being, and i want to go back to the fundamental argument here, it's not about will we will we be able to say, you directed the officer this really has to do with the safety of the people doing the work. and i know you're saying it can be redacted, but there are issues with that that potentially compromise the ability of this information to be kept confidential, like it should be. and i think acting assistant chief waltz has a few comments on that. i just want to clarify the redaction part and i'm not

sure if there's confusion. so if we look at the most redacted things that we do publicly, officer-involved shootings, that takes an enormous amount of tim. a lot of that's for privacy. if you see klutz because klutz can't be broadcasted, etc, the difference between what we're talking about and redaction time and getting it done is the amount in case that suspect or that person is arrested, we only have the 48 hours to turn that around. if it's wednesday, we have even less if when we deliver to the da's office discovery of a of a major incident like that, that all goes over unredacted. so to have those discussions and once they get it, the discovery goes over to the defense. what we're what you're suggesting even in a limited scope, we would not be able in most cases to get things redacted, even if i think the da would say there's no way we'd have to talk to them that we're giving the defense a redacted copy again. once again, it would

only take a judge's order once that case was at a defense table to say, well, we may need to see there. maybe there was discussion about what the suspect was wearing and maybe you misidentified them. and maybe it's in that section. then you peel off the redaction. all of that then goes into into the defense, it goes into the public realm. and all the things that we discussed are no longer there. so i think there's kind of a difference. i'm not saying we can't do redactions. i'm saying there's a lot of hurdles and there's a lot of obstacles, especially if the person we're going to do is going to be arrested immediately to do all of that, because if we can't turn it over in the appropriate time, they can't rebook. they're back out on the street. that's all i want to clarify. so your solution is to just not do it at all, to not have a record of it or or documentation. i think i understand the logistical concerns that you're raising in terms of turning it over, but i think like there has to be some middle ground because what's the solution? not well, let me them

to deactivate when they want. let me give you a general, a general scenario. and we do have the tactical captain here who can correct me or add there are capabilities in certain units. let's just say eod. what does eod explosive the bomb? the bomb squad that they may have discussions on approaches. what capabilities they do and they don't have. which way are we going to go with this? and by telling the public and your potential adversaries what you can and cannot do in an explosive ordinance situation is not something the public needs to know. i also just want to note that there's a categorical exemption for any member on, on, on eod duty. so they're not required to wear bwc, not the tactical discussion that we're talking about. if i'm the captain or i'm the lieutenant and i'm at the command post and we're doing the tactical discussion with eod about what they're going to do, you're saying that i can now redact

that even though everything that's sensitive in that approach, that bomb disposal, that incident is now on body camera, even though they're not even wearing body cameras. you know, i'd like to we have a subject matter expert from the working group here, and i'm wondering if she also had would like to weigh in or had any comments. yes. sorry. i'm not sure i'm a subject matter expert, but i've sat in a room full of them for every one of these meetings and what's troubling, chief? and i wish either you had been there or these issues had been raised because what we heard from the subject matter experts, tactical as well as the body worn camera experts, i mean, there was agreement. there was unanimity in this working group. and i hear what you're saying, but i think that what some of the

officers said candidly in this working group was they thought it was unfair that not everybody had to have their cameras on all the time. they did feel that they they voiced at times. it's confusing to know when to turn them on and when to turn them off. they did raise the point that commissioner carter oberstein raised is sometimes, you know, we could be called into a disciplinary hearing for something we've been told to do. i think that there's something to be said for preserving it. i understand redaction is cumbersome. i'm wondering whether or not if the other thing i heard was 99% of our tactical decisions are not a secret. i heard that so what i'm now hearing is something very different. and i appreciate your concerns and i appreciate the safety of the officers. i get i get all that. i also want to correct the fact that, you know, defense lawyers do not get this body worn camera footage immediately. we work really hard

to constantly remind the da's office what they got to send over da's office. i don't know, maybe you know how quickly they get it, but i think there could be time for a protective order on those rare occasions that you might need to not put something out there that might be a better solution. but i think that there's something to be said for preserving this, to just not record it is maybe problematic. well, the working group. so sorry. i had a question, chief. did the working group or did people explore the option of maybe muting it, allowing the it to be muted rather than both audio and video deactivation? can we just do audio deactivation? we didn't talk about that. we turned off the mute function in the body worn cameras, so there would not be a confusion because we were having issues with the muting and we so we no longer. right. and apparently we can probably turn it back on, but we turned it of. so when we streamlined the

policy to make it clear, you turn them on when you're, you know, before you get to all those things, we turn off the mute function. but with that we were what was preserved was the ability to not record these tactical, sensitive discussions. again, mr. chairman, i, i respect what you're saying about the reason i'm not in the working group meetings is i want officers to speak out. but but just let me say this agreement between the working group does not set policy. that's why we have concurrence. that's why we bring what the working group brings to the department. and that's where all the command staff and the people who, including some of the subject matter experts, and that's where we discuss these issues. there was i just to make the record clear, this is not people in the command staff, as you know, vice president carter robertson said, trying to undermine the policy. this was me saying, i don't agree with this from day one when i saw it, there was no the things that, you know, the all the command staff wearing the body worn cameras, i get it, i'm good with that same thing. there's recommendations. as a

matter of fact, my understanding is that there was a recommendation to not have these by the working group, to not have these cameras on in command post situations. it's problematic. and i understand the want and i go back to what i said. there's a very strong reason why nobody's doing this, because nobody wants to get this information in the public realm, because it puts us in danger. and when you hadn't had to go through the door and when you hadn't had to make these decisions, it's really easy to say, oh, yeah, just record it and it'll be okay. you know, it's a problem. it's a real problem. people get hurt. people get killed when these things get out and it is a problem. can we add the mute function back? is that a possibility? yeah, we had it turned off. i'm sure we can add it back. i think it's just a programing thing. i don't know, i'm the only member of our working group that was able to come tonight. some of others were planning on coming and were

out sick. but i it just feels like and i and i know chief from working on some of the other working groups that you know, whoever is in charge does come to you, you know, as the working group is meeting to check in with you. apparently that didn't happen with this, with this working group, because i think that there was, you know, this was a really great working group. we brought in we brought in doctor kathy pezdek to talk about the cognitive interviews, the department. i was heartened to understand that the department is actually trained on cognitive interviews, and agreed that that is the best practice. well, let me let me speak on that. that's one issue. i don't i don't want to belabor the point, but look, there are multiple interviewing techniques and i understand, you know, i don't necessarily agree that it needs to be in a policy. i don't agree, as a matter of fact, that cognitive is the best practice. interviews are situational. i've had interviews when i was doing these types of investigations where you do cognitive in one part of the interview, you do

confrontational in another part, you do another technique in another part. so i don't think it's wise for us to, you know, lead our officers to believe that cognitive interviews is the is the end all, be all. it is a very good technique. let's let's not let's be clear about that. but there are other techniques that are just effective. you have to have a willing person who's willing to talk during a cognitive interview. a lot of times we're dealing with people even in in administrative investigations, they're not so willing to give information up. so that's a whole nother technique to get the information. so i mean, i you know, this is good information, but to put that in a policy as if that's the only thing out there is a mistake because there are a whole lot of other interview techniques that are situational, that are more appropriate sometimes than cognitive interviews. if you have a you know, a person that's confrontational, you know, there's a rapport building interview technique. so i'm just saying that's why the working

group is there, but it's also why we have concurrence because the working group can i don't i don't interfere with the working group's suggestions because i want them to make the suggestions. but then there's a second conversation, and then it comes to the commission for a third conversation. that is the process. and i just, you know, no disrespect to any officer who was on that working group. i will say i disagree with the positions that we're presenting tonight. it would have been great if we could have discussed these concerns during the working group, because there was a lot of compromise. there was a lot of vetting, there was a lot of research. there was before we came to any agreement. and it was one of the rare working groups where it felt like there was really unanimity, and people came to every meeting prepared and ready to discuss best practices. and the recommendation isn't that, you know, there must always be a cognitive interview. the recommendation is that that's best practice. and, you know,

before an officer views the body worn camera footage, we just want to record their memory because we all know that. i mean, if, if, if i had a client and i, you know, only only gave a statement after seeing what everybody else said, you'd be cross-examined on how that tainted the memory and the testimony. and the same is true for police officers. you know, district attorneys, at least prior administrations really didn't want officers to be looking at their body worn camera footage before they gave a fuller statement. and that's what held this up the last time around. it was held up forever. on on that issue alone. so i'm just i'm just thinking, i hear you. i think that we could have worked out your concerns in a way that would have made sense to you and to all the people on the working group. i'm not exactly sure how to deal with it at this point, as i guess my point. i don't know if that's

helpful or not, but thank you. thank you. yeah, well, i really i think you know, miss tran for sharing the details of what the working group process like is like, because i think it's giving people a window into how thorough and deliberative these conversations are. and frankly, i just were i revising that really thorough work and what seems to be a haphazard way, i wanted to add something on the deliberate on the cognitive interview piece, which is, you know, as miss tran pointed out, this isn't even a directive. it's to recognize it's a best practice. and to do it, quote, when feasible. and in my, you know, brief review of the professors writings who spoke to the working group, it appears that cognitive interviews have decades and decades of research behind them, including hundreds of studies they have been adopted across the country and, in fact, across the world. in

law enforcement organizations. the study, the meta studies show that on average, you get 50% more information without any decrease in accuracy. all this is doing is recognizing that we should not be, as a matter of course, handing over body worn camera to be viewed before an interview even begins and just give this a shot. and if it's quote in the words of the dgo not feasible, then it's not feasible and it's not a requirement. i also just wanted to respond to deputy. is it deputy chief now? i'm sorry, deputy chief walsh's comments. and just to echo what miss tran said, that there isn't a requirement that this be handed over to the defense in 48 hours, that a showing of probable cause must be made in 48 hours. and in many cases, i imagine, can be made without any body worn camera. and as chief said,

chief, chief has emphasized again and again tonight, this will only apply to a narrow slice of critical incidents. and that same view was echoed by the working group, as miss tran said that in 99% of the time, this won't be an issue. so the idea that somehow our body worn camera team will be flooded with redaction requests, it just doesn't reflect. i think, reality as as it was laid out by the subject matter experts and even by chief scott, who said that this will hardly ever come up. i definitely don't want to go back and forth with this, and i won't. but i will say this, that and correct me if i'm wrong. for anybody who was in the working group discussions, there was a lot of discussions about the lethal lethality assessments and the protocols, and i believe the group agreed that those should not be recorded. and for good reason to

protect the confidentiality. i mean, look, we are there's a balance, protection of our victims, protective of our officers, protection for public safety and all this is about is that little sliver that vice president carter and miss tran mentioned, tran mentioned is protected. and i think the balance in terms of best interests, you know, the rationale that, oh, we you know, we get to see what happens or our officers that are being told what to do. and this the chances of that has not happened since i've been here. i'm not saying it can't happen, but that's not the issue. it is really not the issue. and i just want to make sure that we that i stay focused with what the department is arguing for, that is not the issue. the issue is the safety of the public and the safety of our officers as it relates to these specific types of incidents. that is the issue. all this other stuff is not the issue. commissioner benedicto,

thank you. president elias, i think something i want to point out that i think has been lurking in the back of my mind, and i think the vice president crystallized it nicely. the chief, like when you and i talked about this exemption, we talked about that, you know, the working group had asked for it to be removed and in concurrence, it had come back and we discussed this really would be a lot of our discussion was around scope and how rare, you know, we that this wouldn't apply to even most, most critical incidents, even most major incidents. it would be a really small sliver of incidents. and in fact, i think when we last spoke, we couldn't even think necessarily of an example of when you think this, the tactical deactivation could apply, that it's a very limited exemption. and it seems to me that that's at odds with the argument that it can't be redacted, because either this exemption would be sought to be used for very regularly, in which case it would be a large administrative burden for the unit to be redacting. you know,

every week, a request in which case i have real concerns about the scope of the exemption or the scope of the exemption is what you and i discussed, which was very narrow, really incredible edge cases in which case those would be easier to spot high profile and would not be a huge administrative burden given the rareness of when those incidents tend to happen. you know, and so i, i think it can't be both. right. well, those incidents aren't i mean, i maybe i'm not hearing you clearly. critical incidents happened quite frequently, but when we were talking about the scope of the exemption, you were saying that you wouldn't you wouldn't imagine this this exemption being used for every critical incident. or do you think it would be used for every critical incident? i remember our conversation. i'm looking for my notes. i actually wrote down notes during our conversation of being. we need to clearly define what what what rises to the level of. i think we use the term extraordinary incident and

when i took that back to the to our, our team, it's like, let's follow the existing dgo that identifies which types of incidents or critical incidents barricaded suspects, eod or bomb calls. you know, those types of things, active attacker type of incidents. we're not talking about just routine run of the mill incidents. you know, we're talking about incidents where there's going to be a tactical response that requires specialization. there's likely to be an entry, there's likely to be a high risk of something not good happening. those are the type of critical incidents that we're talking about. so those do happen more often than you might think. they don't. all because we have very few officer involved shootings because of good tactics. most of those never get to this commission, but they are happening and they happen pretty regularly. and what i'm saying is this those officers that are out there, those captains like this one that has to respond to those and make these type of decisions, i've had to do it as a captain. i've had to do it as an officer.

these conversations are sensitive conversations that why are we risking even, even risking the ability for this to get to the public? because whose interest is it serving? or we, you know, the chance that we're going to have an officer say, well, i was told to do this. yeah, that could happen. the incident commander is going to be responsible for that decisio. but whose interests are we serving by recording sensitive tactical situations. the public's interest is in my opinion, served by allowing us to keep this this information close to the vest. not risk this information getting out so we can do what we need to do safely without the people that are subjects to these incidents, knowing what we're going to do and why that that's that's to me is the public's best interest. and i mean, i appreciate that that's and yeah, i mean, when we spoke about using it in only extraordinary. you know, i remember us using that language

before it became major in critical incidents. i understood that you felt that again. like like we heard from the working group members that the vast majority of their tactics, they don't consider, you know, whatever top secret and of course, in the rare circumstances where there's something you wouldn't get out. that's why we talked about redaction being a suitable remedy, because most, you know, most critical incidents wouldn't necessarily require a deactivation, even if this language were in there. or do you think that we still, when we talk about what defines a critical incident and every critical incident there's going to be if we do it the way we're supposed to do it, absent some exigent circumstances, there's going to be a command post. there's likely going to be these tactical discussions happening that we are that we're speaking of today. and, yeah, that those things will happen. so a very few of these things result in a shooting where it even becomes a public interest, you know, past what happened in the moment. but

you know, a few of them do. so those incidents do happen. so i don't i don't agree that, you know, these incidents don't occur. it's just that they don't make it to the commission's level because most of them are resolved peacefully, successfully with good outcomes. i mean, i guess my question would be then would you expect that this if the department draft were adopted with this exemption as written, that most things that would meet the definition of major or critical incident would have some tactical deactivation. if those things that i just mentioned exist, if there's a command post where they're talking about entries, they're talking about the use of, you know, whatever munitions or ammunitions that they are trying to use to make an entry or to take a person into custody safely if they're talking about, you know, what types of tactical tools they need to deploy. yes, but that's probably most of those instances. right. because so i

think what we've reached is a little bit of a more fundamental gulf in what we see this exemption. because i understood that even in the universe of major and critical incidents, you understood this exemption to be a very small subset of those where there really were, you know, how we're going at multiple times, like captain aaron said, or, you know, where eod is involved and not necessarily whenever there's a critical incident where they're talking about entry tactics. i mean, it's not every critical incident for instance, you have an hmt team goes out, you got a barricaded suspect, you got a person, you know, for whatever reason is barricaded. there's a lot of negotiations that goes on before we even get to, you know, the point where we might want to breach that door. we need to breach that door, you know, if shots are being fired and we think people are being slaughtered in there. yeah, those discussions are happening. and those are the things that we want to protect. you know, a lot of times there's hours and hours of negotiations with these, with these cases, this policy will

require a captain to be sitting in a command post for five hours with his body worn camera on, or her body worn camera on that. that, to me is it doesn't serve anybody's interest. and what are we doing it for? for the fact that somebody, some officer might say, they told me to do this. i mean, it just it doesn't weigh the balance test does not does not jive on this. it just doesn't jive. captain, did you do you want to add something? you. look, i just want to say i think there's i think maybe in the working group there might have been a disconnect because they're thinking of tactical, tactical decisions that they're making on the street. right? they're they're taking action where we're thinking of tactical communication at a command post. so it's not something an officer would, would be considering. we have command posts when the president comes to stay at the fairmont, do we want to have the body worn camera on at the command post? and we're talking

about egress and exit and entry for the president of the united states on video. now, that's not that'll be the secret service isn't going to want that. but i'm just saying we have command posts all the time. we have command posts at pride that one section you list command post when at a command post when making a decision. it's so it's so vast. i mean, at pride we're going to block larkin street. i'm going to have my body worn camera on. so i think what the chief and i are both talking about is about tactical decisions that we're making at a command post, not the officer on the corner, you know, trying to decide whether how they're going to approach a stolen vehicle. suspect. well, i think there are two distinct things here. right. there's the command post language in the current draft, and there's the tactical deactivation language, which is would i mean, there's some overlap there, but but we're talking about tactical communication that would 99% of the time happen at a command post at the tactical command post. okay. that's that's the distinction we're making here. and they're separate in the dgo.

so it's kind of confusing issues here. but so then why did the language not cabin the deactivation exception to command post if that's all you cared about. because the language that you have is much broader. right. it's both. it's the command post and it's the i'm sorry. it's both. it's the command post. but it's also those sensitive tactical discussions where the bomb squad is talking about how do we deactivate this bomb, what do we what tools do we need to use? what, you know, it's both those things. two things are happening at a command post. there's the decision making. and if i'm running a command post and i and captain ahern is there, he and his tactical team are having these tactical discussions, and then they come to the incident commander and they say, okay, this this is what we recommend. you know, and then there's a discussion. okay. sounds like a good plan. let's go with it. then it goes operational. once it goes operational, everybody's camera is back on. one of the things that you and i talked

about, commissioner, is that it has to be temporary. the captains don't get to if they're if they're giving field commands in an operational thing, they're body worn. cameras would be activated just like everybody else is. but when they're in there, i mean, i don't know how we capture a decision on body worn camera because a lot of this is what's going on in your head when you're getting this information. but the fact of the matter is, there's a lot of back and forth happening in these, in these, in these discussions and particularly in a command post is we try to position ourselves where we have time to think. you know, we try to position ourselves where we have time to have these discussions. it doesn't serve the public's interest that these discussions are recorded, possibly made to be made public. it doesn't serve the interest like i'm saying there. there should be a balance test on everything we do. what is the public's interest? it doesn't jeopardize if it turns into a criminal case. turning off these cameras does not jeopardize that criminal case in any way. at most, we're talking

about administrative things that. yeah, it would be nice for people to hear if they want to hear it, because everybody's interested in what we do. and how we do it. it doesn't it doesn't. the risk outweighs the benefit, in my opinion. and that's, that's that's the pushback on this. i appreciate that, chief. and i appreciate that we have to weigh those things. i do think it's worth noting that there are other factors than just, you know, one example that the vice president gave is that an officer might face administrative discipline, but there are other, you know, there are broader policy benefits. just before the meeting, i was talking to public policy director jones at dpa, and we talked about the very comprehensive report after the uvalde shooting incident that was a model for both that department and for other departments. i know when i attended one of my ride alongs, that report was posted in the in the room for officers to look at, to see what they can learn from it. and a lot of the comprehensive learnings from that report were because they had really comprehensive body worn camera footage that under this policy might not

necessarily have been captured. it included conversations from the command post. it included conversations that were undoubtedly tactical and one of the most unimaginable high stress situations, and that department and law enforcement in general was helped by the fact that there was transparency. in the context of that report. i do want to turn a little bit to the recording question, and i want to see if acting director would like to weigh in. i know we talked earlier about how the issue of viewing footage before an interview was quite a controversial subject for 10.11, the last time it was up. and to see if dpa, you know, what his reaction was to the current drafts on this topic. thanks very much, commissioner benedicto. so wait, sorry is at this point because commissioner yee is on the. oh, i'm sorry. no, i'm sorry. i asked her a question. oh. thank you. i asked her a question about recording, but if commissioner wants to go, we can. yes, i i've been waiting. that's okay. hey, thank you very much. president elias. my question is that in regards to the body worn cameras by, i

guess, the command staff and, and in these critical situation and tactical situation being recorded, my, my question is whether the officer, i mean, not the officer, but the people involved in these command meetings, would it be what you call, i guess, responsive right away or they're thinking back about, well, it's going to be recorded and i'm going to hold back on some of my comments on response, because some of these issues, you got to make the decisions at that at that momen. and i would hate to wait for critical situation where officers hold back because it's being recorded. and their concern is that they're going to be up on it, and whether they're being charged for whatever comes, comes of it or whatever. learning that we can have. my concern is that we keep the

public safe and making sure that people that does not need to know what the command staff does to protect us, because once the people that commits a crime that knows our policies well, we'll use it against us. so that's my concern, and i'll see what the chief have to say. yeah, unfortunately, i think the answer is yes. and that's part of what i read earlier from the bureau of justice assistance or bja, in their model policy that's on their website. they actually do mention that that it has a they call it a disruptive effect when that camera is always rolling. and in these types of situations i do think there is a chilling effect. but we get second guessed on, particularly on these types of things that we're talking about there. second guessing their scrutiny. and there should be. it does tend to make people pull back. and in these situations, you definitely want candor, but

i can see where officers would be. look, i, i can see where officers would be hesitant in these situations. and we're talking about literally life and death decisions. and you're going through a process, thought process out loud, talking through your thoughts and all that. sometimes what you're thinking may not be what we what we interact with. and i can see situations because i see it now where it it does have a chilling effect on officers being candid when they need to be candid in these situations. so when these incidents go to the operational phase, everything is on, all the cameras are on. but us talking through tactics, talking through issues, bouncing ideas off of each other. yeah, i venture to say it will have a chilling effect because that's what the research shows from the bga model. policy. and just to follow up on regarding body worn

cameras, if it does happen, it goes to the command staff. would they have to file reports, written reports as well? the written report piece would follow the same protocols, but it would require the command staff to be be equipped with the body worn cameras. and if we're involved in depending on how this policy lands, if we're involved in something that we're activation happens. you know, it depends on what what that action is. so say a captain has a body worn camera going on for, i guess, a shift of eight hours. he's and there's incidents that go through. he would have to review that to write has that additional time that is lost. do we need that. we cannot get back. and that's time cost. and looking at the budget that's coming up in the this this coming year, i think we need every minute and time that we

can have our officers on the street. thank you very much. you thank you. i'll now repeat my question to acting director to see if you have any thoughts on the on the interview process and on on the topic of viewing footage before an interview. so thank you, commissioner benedict. i was not part of the working group, but mr. jones was part of the working group and dpa's position was that there should be an interview prior to any viewing of the body worn camera, that a cognitive interview is the most appropriate position to take. i'll say on the flip side, as in my other role as a da, that was our position from the da's office under prior administrations as well. i do agree with miss tran that the that the a witness is compromised when they are able to view body worn camera. both themselves or other people's body worn camera prior to being interviewed. it really does affect how they view and what

they see. so our position from dpa in the working group was that they should have an administrative interview prior to being able to see body worn camera. thank you. and you have decades of da experience, right? well, yes. thank you for aging me. president elias. but i'm just saying that you were the number two in several da in san francisco under several administrations, right? just under mr. da gascon, but also in los angeles as well. i'm just going to make one comment on on the other issue that we've been talking about, the critical incident issue. we didn't ask about that. i know, i know, but you know, it's hard for me not to pipe up. i'm asking about it so she can provide exactly the only issue i completely understand, chief. the department's position on that. i have some concerns about the broadness of that language that is being proposed in the in the red. i don't understand who has

the opportunity to make those decisions. is it someone who is an incident commander is allowing that to occur? i think that it's broadly written and that that is very difficult to enforce. anybody can can point to that and say this was a critical incident. i turned off my body worn camera. but i think that if you know, i'm a i'm a creature of compromise. i think that there is language that can be crafted that would satisfy the chief's concern about officer safety, but also satisfy the idea that this is not going to be something that officers will do without actual direction. someone from an incident command who says this is a critical incident. body worn cameras should be turned off for these purposes. so that's my only concern about the language is the broadness of the language. i can answer that question just so you have the

context. you know, these types of incidents don't always work like clockwork. ideally, you have time to set up a command post and somebody comes out and declares incident command. you know, sometimes these things unfold so quickly. you know, even when the tac team arrives, things are happening on the fly. shots are being fired. you know, we want to talk about, you know, uvalde. yeah. there was command post after the fact. but, you know, our training and what we actually do in reality, if lives are at stake and in danger, we got to go in and we got to we got to do, do our job. so there's not always the scenario where we have the luxury of having the incident commander saying, you know, you turn off your camera because this is a, you know, sometimes these discussions have to happen like right now. and we i think we owe it to our personnel to give them the discretion. you know, we give them guns and stars and a lot of responsibility. we they can't make a decision as to when to turn a camera on and when to

turn the camera off, when they're about to go in and make a life or death decision. you know, i think we owe that to our officers the ability to do their jobs and do their jobs in a way that makes sense. i think sometimes our policies are, well intentioned, but they get in the way of common sense. well, with that, what i will. no. yeah. okay. of course. just one last point. i just want to and i'll be very brief. i think commissioner put benedicto really put his finger on the nub of something when we were talking about this exception will be ripe for abuse. we were told. oh, don't worry, this will hardly ever come up. when? but then when? when we raised how redaction would solve every issue raised by the chief, we were told, oh well, we can't do that because it would completely overwhelm us, because it would come up too often. and i think these shifting explanations are indicative of something deeper, which is, you know, there's a reason that the folks who are most expert in this didn't ask for this exception. now, the last thing i'll say is, i just

want to emphasize one point, which is that redaction of body worn camera footage after the fact would solve every problem raised by the chief. and in with all the speakers we've heard tonight, we have not heard one good reason, one single reason why these videos cannot be promptly redacted before they would need to be disclosed to the public. that should satisfy every concern raised from the department tonight. if i could just make sure that we, for the record, commissioner, vice president carter, you keep saying that these people in the working group were the most expert at this. they are not. this man is the most expert at this. you're talking about. the work group had two line officer, a retired member who worked some long time ago. there was nobody in the tactical company in that work. former head of the tactical unit was in the working group. you're talking about the retired member? no, i'm talking about lieutenant meehan. and. and also officer in charge of

ftfo. am i am i getting that right? officer woodson? he was in the tac. okay, so but but this is the most let's not minimize the let's hope we're going to pause. i understand what you're saying, chief vice president. i understand what you're saying, i apologize, i should have made this disclaimer when the item was called, but i was distracted. commissioner clay asked me to postpone the vote on this because he would like to weigh in and participat. well, he'd like to weigh in and make the make this vote out of respect for that request, i am going to grant it. i do appreciate this robust discussion. i think issues were raised tonight that give us all pause and will give us an opportunity to take back, and perhaps propose new language to solve some of the issues that were raised, including the one by sharon wu. so with that, i am going to ask that we move to public comment, since we are not

going to be taking a vote on this issue unless there's something else that you would briefly like to say, chief or other commissioners. okay, nothing to add. thank you. at this time, the public is now welcome to make public comment on line item 14. if you would like to make public comment, please approach the podium. there is no public comment. thank you. can we return to item ten line item ten presentation and discussion on commission drafted resolution regarding sfpd's reward policy discussion and possible action. okay, so i conferred with the city attorney and there is one addition that i would like to make to the well crafted, inspiring resolution by vice president carter, oprah stone. i would ask that the fourth a fourth paragraph be added to state notwithstanding any other provision, no payout

will be made to a person who is providing false information to solely obtain a monetary reward. under this ordinance. so i'm going to ask to amend the motion on the floor to include that addition, because i think that it addresses the concern that i had, and i would like to also move this forward. given miss brown's comments, i'll second that motion. i just like to be heard on this. i, i, i don't think this addition is necessary because under the current ordinance, the chief already has discretion about whether to give out an award. and i have confidence that whoever the chief of police is, he or she would not give out an award to somebody who knowingly provided false information. so i just don't think it's doing any work. but the most important thing to me is to pass this tonight, because i miss brown's been

waiting far too long for this to happen, and i disagree. i had hoped that this would be a celebratory and uplifting moment on the long journey to getting revision of the actual statutory language, and i imagine that was a little bit distressing for miss brown when we were on the precipice of doing this, and it was all pulled back at the last moment based on concerns that i think could have been raised far earlier and that substantively don't make any sense. and i just want to apologize to miss brown for the any duress that that might have caused her. but i will be supporting the version tonight because that's what's required to get to four votes. it appears, i think procedurally we're in a weird we're in a weird pickle. so i think what can happen procedurally is i can withdraw my second of the vice president's original motion,

which would then fail for lack of a second. then then president elias would be free to make her motion amendment right. but an amendment to a motion that's already been it hasn't been voted on. it's been on the floor. yeah. on the floor, i, i think commissioner, city attorney who is the advisor of all procedural commissioners, you have the ability to amend the motion and to have a friendly amendment if you would like. but a friendly amendment has to be accepted by the original motion or correct. correct. so if you do not agree, then that right. then i figured you wouldn't, which is why we would do my thing. okay. no, i'll just agree because i don't think we have four votes otherwise. okay. all right. so do you need me to read that back or can i give you the paper with respect to the fourth prong that i read out, just for the record, it's. yeah, it's been read into the record. i'll second the motion. okay. so at this point, do we open it up for general

comment and then take a vote? good evening commissioners. we already had public comment on the matter and that's all that's required. so you don't need a second public comment period for that matter. let's just take a vote then on the motion. commissioner benedicto, how do you vote? yes, commissioner benedicto is yes. commissioner yanez. yes. mr. yanez is. yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. vice president carter overstone. yes. vice president carter overstone is. yes. and president elias. yes. elias is. yes. you have five yeses. thank you. can we resume to the regularly scheduled items, beginning with item eight, line item eight, presentation on sfpd's disciplinary review board. findings and recommendations second quarter 2024 discussion.

he's wrong because look at this. i. the mouse is like acting weird and it won't be. there. when she does it in a. way not the double standard. no. she. thank you

commissioner yee. sometime version. is everybody ready? all right, let's go. thank you. good evening, chief scott and president elias and commissioners, i'm lieutenant lisa springer, and i work in the internal affairs division. and i'm here to present on the disciplinary review board for quarter two. and herewith, acting director sharon, hi. from my role. and i thought you were leaving. i was like, oh, that's interesting, but can you speak either speak into the mic or speak like you're very soft spoken. i thought it was like

super loud. no. so we had our board on october 30th of this year. those were the people that were present. before i go into the quarter two, i just wanted to discuss the recommendations that we had first from quarter one and kind of where we are with those. so the recommendation one was to revise an 18 dash 259, which is rules, protocols and procedures for firearm safety. that has been revised and is currently in concurrence. and it should it should be done by next week. second recommendation was to update the fto training manual. again. there are many obstacles with doing that, but we did get the intervention. what they present to the fto from the fto office so that that is still

being worked on. update number three to update the arrest and control manual or dgo 5.01, so officers can receive clear and adequate training on regarding speeding subjects and use of force. they have a draft pn that the academy made and very specific to splitting subjects. so that is also in concurrence. and the fourth recommendation involves updating policies to train officers on not including certain information on the dpos on dv cases where the suspect may not know where the victim lives. and inspector keene from svu is working on a draft to address that. so now on to quarter two. the aggregate trends identified by iad were failure to appear at the range. there was a 27.59%, which was 24

cases. neglect of duty was second general and that was 21.84% conduct unbecoming an officer, 19.54 and neglect of duty body worn camera was fourth at 14.94% for dpa. what we found were in the aggregate trends, neglect of duty and body worn camera 13.9% neglect of duty. failure to take required actions 11.1% and comments and becoming an officer dew point condition. there was one ied case that resulted in both a policy failure and a training failure for q two and there was one ied case closed that resulted in just a policy failure. the first case involved a sergeant and his squad that were assigned to the mobile field force detail for the purpose of targeting illegal stunt driving events occurring in san francisco around 2200 on

927. in 2020, the sergeant observed a suspicious dodge charger with a passenger holding a handgun out of the right rear passenger side window. the vehicle stopped abruptly in front of 1630 vicente and the officers detained the occupants and the subject that was producing the firearm. it was later determined to be an off duty law enforcement officer from an outside agency, and that officer appeared. the off duty officer appeared to be intoxicated. the sergeant seized the officer's handgun as property for safekeeping and issued him a certificate of release. the officers did not believe the subject had committed a criminal offense. however, they seized and booked the firearm for safekeeping, and the officer was released to his wife at the scene. oh, sorry.

the iad investigation centered on three allegations, but the training failure in particular was regarding the mpc code that the officers were unaware of, which is 3602 a mpc. we also in our panel discovered there was a penal code as well. the policy failure in this case was regarding muting the bwc ids, review of the sergeants, bwc footage revealed that their camera was muted and unmuted several times during the incident. incident. the sergeant told iad that they muted their bwc at unknown times during the investigation because they were discussing sensitive law enforcement information. the sergeant also said they documented in the police report that they muted the bwc in accordance with department policies, and the narrative gave an overly broad statement of my camera, was muted and turned off at times in conjunction with our department policy, citing police

tactics, confidential information and administrative investigation. the second iad case, the policy failure, involved an incident that occurred in november of 2023 at approximately 2200 hours. the sergeant reported off duty after working an extended shift due to apec. the sergeant believed they they left their department, issued radio on their desk at the hall of justice to charge. but when they returned after their weekend, they could no longer find the radio. the officer believed that maybe another officer grabbed a radio thinking it was theirs. at the time of the incident, the robbery detail detail shared its office space with a group of non-sworn analysts, and it was configured in a with a walkway conjoining both units and a separate doorway on each side. the detail was not reported as any type of accusation, just to

show that the security was an issue. of dbi also had two policy failure. i'm sorry. yeah, policy failure cases. it's ironic that both of these policy failure cases have to do with things that were on agenda or coming up on agenda. so i'm not sure if into how much detail i want to go into it. the first was a policy failure concerning a dpa received an anonymous complaint requesting an investigation into a sworn members, improper entry of the stop data information. the investigation showed that the sworn member conducted 1198 stops and listed 1193 stops as white individuals in his stop data during the dpa interview, the sworn member admitted a multiyear practice which

disregarded department protocol and traffic stops and data entry. it included many different things self-taught practice of opening and closing cards as a 1071, an investigative detail failing to communicate his stops to dispatch, not conducting criminal records checks on individuals. he felt that were completely normal, listing drivers races as oh for others on all his traffic citations. we determined that the that there needs to be a more robust stop data auditing system. i think that the stop data audit will shed much light and more light than i could do in this case on this particular issue, and i actually would want to delay a discussion until the stop data audit is presented before the commission. and i think this would be a much more full

discussion once that happened. the second case and i apologize, i did not do our slides. the second case had to do with dgo 6.14, which was taken off calendar for this agenda. in that case, officers conducted a search of an individual that was having a psychological issue, that individual they did a pat down search of that individual prior to being transported for a 51, 50 hold. they did locate items on that individual. they recovered those items, but they did not do a detailed search, nor did they accompany the fire department to transport that individual to the hospital. that individual had a knife secreted on their person. they pulled that knife on the emt. we have suggested some policy failures

involving 6.14, 6.14 is currently on the agenda tonight. i think it's been put on hold, but i think again, i would delay the discussion on this particular policy failure because i think it will be addressed with the revisions of dgo 6.14. the office of equity and inclusion did review everything they did not find any bias. and then just really quickly, the recommendations that came out of the drb recommendation one is to issue a department notice informing members of the mpc code. we discussed with the regarding the firearm recommendation to sfpd should consider options such as implementing a comprehensive citation system department wide and discontinuing the use of written citations, or creating an mou with the traffic court to share a unified citation

database, ensuring that all handwritten citations are archived before being sent to traffic. court recommendation three sfpd should provide clear guidance emphasizing the importance of maintaining communication with dispatch during traffic stops. it's critical for officer safety, and this update could include guidance at advanced officer training, a department notice, or any other training recommendation for. we kind of already talked about, so i'll skip over that part next steps and outcomes is we haven't done our quarter three yet. i'm pretty sure we're going to combine three and four just because of we're a little bit behind. and that concludes that. any questions. thank you. great job. thank you sergeant. if any

member of the public would like to would like to make public comment regarding line item eight, please approach the podium. and there's no public comment. line item nine sfpd's firearm discharge review board report and in-custody death review board report third quarter 2024 discussion. you're a good idea. okay, in the third quarter of 2024, the drb only reviewed one os, which was 20 1-001. this os

occurred on may 7th, 2021 at approximately 12 30 hours. sfpd dispatch broadcasted information about suspects in a silver mitsubishi committing all auto burglaries in the area of fisherman's wharf central. plainclothes officers went out on in three separate, unmarked vehicles to different locations that day to try and locate this silver, mitsubishi and the suspects. the plainclothes sergeant happened to start later that day, and as the officers were leaving the station, they saw the sergeant and notified him about their plan for the vehicle. two officers were riding together and they located the silver mitsubishi by the ferry building on the embarcadero. they observed two of the occupants commit two separate auto burglaries and stealing luggage from parked vehicles. the two officers

relayed what they had witnessed to the other members of the team, as well as to the sergeant who was monitoring the officers on an encrypted radio channel while they got ready for their shift. the officers followed the mitsubishi into the southern district, where they temporarily lost sight of the vehicle, but then they located a at varney place and jack london alley at this time. now two of the occupants were standing outside of the vehicle rummaging through the stolen luggage, and another suspect was sitting in the driver's seat. officer one exited the vehicle and monitored the subjects on foot, while officer two parked the vehicle 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 e 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. all right. thank you for all of your hard work. i'm seeing no questions on the dice. can i get a motion? yeah, i will make. this is to go to meet confer. yeah, i will make a motion to adopt general order 5.18 for use in meeting conferring with the effective bargaining units pursuant to the commission's labor labor relations resolution 23, dash 30. i'll second any member of

the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 12. please approach the podium. there is no public comment on the motion. commissioner benedicto, how do you vote? yes. commissioner benedicto is. yes. commissioner yanez. yes. commissioner yanez is yes. commissioner yi. yes. commissioner yi is yes. and elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have four yeses. thank you, thank you. line item 15. public comment on all matters pertaining to item 17 below. closed session, including public comment on item 16, a vote whether to hold item 17 in closed session. if you'd like to make public comment, please approach the podium. there's no public comment on item 16. a vote on whether to hold item 16 in closed session. san francisco administrative code section 67.10 d action. motion to go

okay. go ahead. motion to go to closed session. second. second. thank you. all right. on the motion, commissioner benedicto, how do you vote? yes, commissioner benedicto is. yes. commissioner young. yes. yes. commissioner says yes. commissioner yee. yes. commissioner yee is yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is four. you have four yeses. we'll go into closed session. of item 17 a where factual information will be provided in the minutes. second, any member of the public would like to make public comment regarding line item 18. please approach the podium. seeing no public comment on the motion, commissioner benedicto, how do you vote? yes, mr. benedicto is. yes. commissioner yanez. yes. mr. yanez is. yes. commissioner yee.

yes. commissioner yee is. yes. and president elias. yes. president elias is. yes. you have four yeses. line item 19. adjournment. be a great night. good night.

[music] since the opening on third and mission in 2010 the grove is a epicenter. tis is part of the community. we bring tourist, we bring convention ears and have a huge group of locers who live here. we are their living room and love to see them on a regular basis and seek newcomers to the city of san francisco and serve them a good dose of san francisco hospitality.

we make everything in house from scratch every dape we vahand carved [indiscernible] the chicken pot pie we serve probably a hundred thousand if not more. roasted chicken, prime rib, salad[indiscernible] coffee cake and [indiscernible] all the pies are fresh baked. the home made cookies are done, once, twice a day, depending how fast they go. we believe in goold old fashion home cooked food. we want to be a welcoming, warm hospitable place for everyone to come and hang out. respond time with friends and family, meet new people. have important conversation. relax and enjoy, rejuvenate, get restored, enjoy one another and the at mus sphere the growth. the grove is over 730 to 830, 7

days a week, breakfast, lunch and dinner. complaints and 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 interprerererererererere >> we will get started. welcome everyone this is the special meetingly of ocoh oversight committee december 16 issue 2024. >> thank you, chair