Skip to main content

tv   Police Commission  SFGTV  February 2, 2022 5:30pm-9:31pm PST

5:30 pm
5:31 pm
5:32 pm
5:33 pm
5:34 pm
5:35 pm
5:36 pm
5:37 pm
5:38 pm
5:39 pm
5:40 pm
5:41 pm
5:42 pm
>> there we go. >> commissioner carter-oberstone. >> present. >> commissioner byrne. >> commissioner yee. >> here. >> commissioner hamasaki. >> and vice president elias. >> here. >> president cohen you have a quorum also we have chief william scott from the san francisco police department and executive director paul henderson from the department of police accountability. >> all right, folks. i don't know about you but i'm excited. i'm ready to roll up my sleeves and get to work to do the people's business. i am excited because today is the first day that we have a full house and a full commission and i would like to welcome our newest member commissioner. i want to see if you have any opening remarks or greetings you
5:43 pm
would like to share. no pressure, you don't have to. the floor is yours. >> thank you, very much, president cohen. i do just want to take a couple of seconds to give thanks to all those that came before us on this land especially given all the challenges that the native american populations face and the immigrant populations of these lands. so i do like to thank my forfathers. i'm honored to join this commission. the last few months or last couple of years, is we have a better outcomes create a safer community for all constituents and i know that the chief has a
5:44 pm
tough job. thank you for opening space and giving me an opportunity to reach out and share my visions for what i'd like to accomplish in this commission with this time so i look forward to rolling those sleeves up and doing the good work. thank you. >> president cohen: with that, we will officially begin this meeting. you would please join me by rising and saying the pledge of allegiance. place your right happened over your heart and pledge. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. thank you, very much. sergeant youngblood, would you please call the next agenda item? >> yes, ma'am. line item 1. adopt findings for the police
5:45 pm
commission to meet via tell conferencing technology foray assembly bill 361, discussion and possible action. >> president cohen: thank you. is there any discussion on this? none? >> not other than coming back in march down at city hall. i understand from the office. this is our last go around. >> president cohen: is there any public comments? >> clerk: members of the public making public comment regarding line item 1, please press star 3 now? >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: hello. i work at city college of san francisco and i support the board of trustees meetings.
5:46 pm
so i urge you to consider that when you return to in-person meetings that you consider all of these staff people and the support people in the i.t. people and realize that when you return to in-person meetings, you are not just making that decision to take a risk for yourselves, or perhaps the mayor's mandating it, but that is a decision that is being made for a lot of people who don't have the feeling that they can say no. you are putting a lot of people's lives at risk and please consider that. >> thank you. >> thank you, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello i'm a resident of district 1. i would like to support the continue tell conference option for both employees and the previous callers spoke about and as well for the general public and i think it makes it a lot
5:47 pm
easier for people in the general public that have other commitment that's have kids that work to join me if you want to continue to hear from the public. >> that is the end of public comment. >> president cohen: thank you, very much. i'm curious to know if any of the other commissioners have thoughts or fieldings about in-person? ok. seeing none. also, sergeant youngblood. >> sorry president cohen, director henderson was waiting. >> president cohen: i didn't see him. >> he is muted. >> i like to start off every comment being muted apparently and i was just going to comment and say that i just found out during the pandemic, part of
5:48 pm
what increased the volume for the public reaching out to the d.p.a. for through and with the d.p.a. was not having to come up and appear in-person. specifically, and i think that this is or in public buildings and it was a great benefit to have them be able to reach out electronically in their own and from their own homes or device to participate and just because i think there's such a high correlation. and thank the public comment ex
5:49 pm
people to weigh in on our work without having those inputs weighted upon either exposing themselves during a pandemic and safety and being in an enclosed room, versus being able to share their opinions broadly, widely and expand the number of folks that can participate by being able to be here virtually for these meetings. it's my two cents based on facts and evidence from what the and the comments to the d.p.a. as it relates to the commission. i just wanted to say that. madison agrees with me too. >> what an awesome member of the commission. >> she doesn't want to meet in-person either, i'm sure. >> i hate the thought of missing all this action at home. i appreciate your comments,
5:50 pm
paul, and also commissioner jim byrnes for the comments. i wanted to ask the sergeant youngblood if there's a possibility if there's room for a hybrid on a state wide level the legislature is going into a hybrid. people that want to be in-person are in-person and people on-line are on-line. is that a possibility? >> yes, ma'am. they're going to set up a hybrid model. the public can come in-person and call in and we'll pipe in the public comments. >> president cohen: o. thank you, i appreciate that. >> i'd like to volunteer to work on the hybrid part and.
5:51 pm
>> we need a motion and a second to pass line item 1. >> president cohen: is there a motion? >> i'll motion. >> president cohen: months and a second. >> i'll second the. >> second by commissioner yee. let's talk a vote. [roll call vote]. >> you are muted president cohen.
5:52 pm
>> president cohen: call the next item. >> clerk: general public comment. at this time the public is now welcome to address the commission for up two minutes that on items that are within subject matter jurisdiction of the police commission. rules of order during public comment, neither police or d.p.a. personal or commissioners are required to respond to questions by the public but may provide a brief response. and enter being access code 2491 press pound and pound again and press star 3 if you wish to make a comment. you may submit public comment in either of the following ways. e-mail the secretary of the police commission at sfpd.commissionor written comments may be century a u.s. postal service of the public safety building. if you would like to make public comment press star 3.
5:53 pm
good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: my name is susan buckman and i'm a core team member in the black community. at the board of supervisors hearing last week regarding progress in the cops reforms supervisor preston asked catherine mcgwire how do we reconcile the implementation of reforms, particularly those related to buy as, with weapon members are showing about the on going race related discrepancies. and i don't believe that the usdoj suggested that these specific recommendations would solve all of thousands problems. and what the cause is of the disparity and address them. here is the response from our founders felicia jones. the fact that mcgwire said this strikes me as offensive and shocking. the recommendations were meant to have real results and to
5:54 pm
reduce the brutality and racism in sfpd and the fact that they have not resulted in racism is why we still have the involvement of the cal doj and the attorney general who said to us they would not just call it done when all 272 recommendations are submitted and the real pain and real life consequences of the horrific disparities are what are at the core of the issues. and sfpd is continued resistance to change and adherence to racist police and practices. also, those statistics on disparities are not outliers. the statistics are disappointingly consistent since 2016 and. >> good evening, good evening, everyone. i would just like to make a comment. i would like to thank police chief scott for his decision to
5:55 pm
determinate memorandum of understanding with a district attorney office and in light of the revelations of the actions of the office to with hold evidence with the intention to cut peace officers when criminals within the city and the accountability. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> my named is david erinson and i have several questions for police commission and a concern about this report that came out just this evening. first, the police commission there's been a presentation that there was a presentation by several community groups in june and organized by the dpa and including disparity in the black community represented by daunte king and others and i have seen very little follow-up and follow-up on that from the police commission. we talked about doing the people's work but when the people have given feedback i don't see meaningful follow-up. we have continued discussion of the ripa report and i'd like to
5:56 pm
understand what the police commission is doing to hold sfpd and the racial disparity in san francisco and why we're alarm bells not ringing off the hook when a black san francisco is six times as likely to be subject tie traffic stop nine times likely to be subject to use of force and 11 times likely to be arrested. with the previous caller, i'm concerned about a report that the sfpd is pulling out an mou to have a the d.a. play a role in sfpd use of force, can you describe of death and police shootings. there's clearly impact on the plaque community and this mou is only going to make it worse. in black san franciscans are almost 11 times more likely than whites and five more times likely than latin x populations that have use of force used on them how can we trust sfpd to place themselves in these matters? it's a great concern to me.
5:57 pm
thank you. >> clerk: thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> caller: good evening, police commissioners. i'm calling tonight to express my disappointment in the letter that chief scott wrote. i thought that mr. hamasaki did an excellent analysis on this issue on his twitter and it had gone through and discussed why as again as usual, the recallers are using very little fact in their attacks. specifically, as we agree and about this incident involving force, we know that the choice, whether or not to file charges, was made not, made by suzie (inaudible) and this was an event that took place before mr. rowdean was even in an office. as usual, there's very little basis for fact and these attacks and that is being used to malign mr. rowdean and the job he is
5:58 pm
doing. we've seen this superior judge weighed in on this and examined this evidence and recognized that if there's no bearing to the case whatsoever, until i view this as an attempt to get out of traditional oversight vital for our city to restore fate and the police. the police chief to reconsider his letter and allow outside oversight to this is to the surveillance stuff as well as this letter. in both cases, what we've seen is an unwillingness to accept outside methods of control and outside methods of feedback so, people are clearly saying that the police are too brutal and they need reforms and thank you
5:59 pm
very much and i very much appreciate you. >> good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> good evening, it's john crew. i just heard the news about the police department outrageously without any consultation with the police commission much less the approval pulling out of an agreement that is defined to facilitate the elect district attorney from enforcing the the law and it would be made and the just dismissed it as a serious concern and that mischaracterized this beating and left out key facts including the fact that the officers went
6:00 pm
to the scene and escalated and everyone can watch the video and ultimately a slurry should decide and this is an incident a man was sent to the hospital by baton blows and in violation of existing department policies and this sort of stunt to interfere with law enforcement should not be if i have transparency is not a slogan. transparency and state and it's defined by the presence of cannedder and conversation freely i'm disappointed at how the department says it's transparent but when it's time to sell the truth, without
6:01 pm
obvious and went to correct mistakes, this department these days is repeatedly falling short if it's the raul of law in san francisco. >> thank you, caller. president cohen, that's the end of public cohen. >> all right, thank you very much. i appreciate the comments in the public and of course, this topic is not on the agenda so we're very limited in the discussion it will be during his chiefs report. with that said, call the next item. adoption of the minutes. action. the meeting of january 5th and
6:02 pm
122,022nd. >> let's take public comment >> members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 3 adoption of the minutes press star 3 now. >> president cohen, there's no public comment. thank you. i'll make a motion to accept and adopt the minutes is there a second. >> second by commissioner elias. let's call the vote. >> clerk: on the motion to accept the adoption of the minutes -- [roll call vote]
6:03 pm
you have seven yeses, motion passes. >> line item four. request for approval to accept $1,000 gift cards from tam inand nika through give to sf to be used for the department needs to most. and enforcement immigration law through and 2021 and electronic communications for bias report and fourth quarter 2021 and police commissioner report of disciplinary actions fourth quarter 2021. >> are there any items on the consent calender you want to pull. can we pass it. >> commissioner elias. >> thank you, president cohen. i had a couple questions with respect to the electronic
6:04 pm
communications devices for bias and my question is on page, which is the graphic or xl looking chart and it's members in ternal affairs to determine if they're related to buy as i just want to now how that is
6:05 pm
working and what type of discipline has led from these audits if any and if there's hasn't been any i.a.d. responses and i'd like to know why. perhaps we can agenized that for future dates or if the department would like to answer that now but we have a long agenda today and perhaps we can agenized it for next meeting and also have iad come back to provide us an update with their cases. >> we'll be happy to do it. we'll be ready for the next meeting. >> commissioner byrne. >> i have a similar concern on the enforcement of immigration lies and according to the report you've had zero communication
6:06 pm
and with the i assume ice and kiss tomorrow's border protection and anybody in with detention and i i find it difficult to see that there's been cloutly no contact and as commissioner ally as said, i don't expect for the chief to speak to it tonight and i think that that's an issue i want to explore that there's no communication and with the u.s. immigration authorities and the past calender year and and as i said, i just find that unusual to say the least and that's any person. >> if i can piggy off that, while the department can also provide us the numbers of
6:07 pm
investigations is context with the given the fact that they work with federal partners on a lot of cases and so it's a little suspicious to me as well and i think with your expertise and guidance it will be helpful for us to understand. >> commissioner, just to be clear, on your additional requests, was there additional requests and addition to come commissioner byrne. it would beful there's been if would be interesting to see what and the fact that sfpd works on
6:08 pm
investigations that effect immigrant communities. particularly in the tenderloin. >> thank you. >> there are no other discussions we can take a vote. >> is there a motion to accept the consent calender. >> i'll make a motion. >> thank you. who said that. >> thank you, commissioner. commissioner elias just needs a second let's call the role. >> it would be public comment. for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item 4 press star 3 now. president cohen there's no
6:09 pm
public comment. >> thank you. >> let's call the roll. >> before we call the roll, excuse me, those two items that commissioner elias and the that's my understanding and to clarify that. so what is your two things and i'm sorry for this. feedback and the noise. we need to make a motion to separate for a bias report and also separation the police commission when was the other one? >> enforcement of immigration
6:10 pm
laws and it's a report the immigration law and device force bias report and we will take that out and have it brought to us on next week he's agenda and and the agenda and accept the balance of the consent agenda. >> so moved. motion made by commissioner burn. is there a second. second by commissioner elias. bless call the roll. >> on the motion excluding the bias audit and on immigration how do you vote [roll call vote]
6:11 pm
>> you have seven yeses, the motion passes. >> these issues would easily roll into the accountability matrix i was proposing and they'll be captured and my staff captured them during these meetings when these questions come up and they can roll on to that matrix that we'll get published and they could be a natural part of the agenda or picked out individually and i'm going to raise the issue when
6:12 pm
there are issues added to the a again ta but flagging it because i feel like we're going to have a lot of these signs and and i want to give it because because it's a easy solution and best practices for other commissions do it outside of san francisco, that's it. thank you. can we get it done. question need that constant reminder. is there another speaker? >> discussion. weekly crime trends provide an overview of offenses occurring in san francisco and provide a summary and this will include unplanned events or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commissioner discussion on
6:13 pm
unplanned will be limit today determining whether to calender for a future meeting. >> good evening you good evening president cohen and vice president elias and i will start following up with your comments a second ago and briefly just say a little bit about the termination of the mou and i would just say this, about transparency with this decision and everything done was documented in writing with the letter and we've heard comments about the letter and it was given to the public the media and members of this department and district attorney who i called to let him know this was coming and the police commission. the essence of this and here is where i end my comments it's not
6:14 pm
about the legal decision of the trial. that letter has nothing to do with the legal decision of the trial and that is for the judge to touchdowns and i respect that and this is not about that and it's stated in the letter, this is about the m.o.u. and what it stands for. i worked on that and what the first m.o.u. and the second one and for the first one, i personally worked on that m.o.u. for two years and with our previous good evening so if anybody wants to question my commitment, to oversight and accountability, look at the record of my commitment of making that m.o.u. happen in the first place. that the the spirit of the m.o.u. and i was in most of the meetings with the former d.a. and the current d.a. and his
6:15 pm
staff, the spirit of that m.o.u. is fairness, transparency, cooperation, and an agreement that works for all concerned parties including the the police. including the police officers. no one is afraid of accountability. no one is afraid of oversight. not this department and not me and not the members of this department. what we're asking for and i'm asking for a process that is fair. i welcome a conversation about this everything that i have done i put in public so the public can understand and my thinking and i've also as we put in the letter reached out to the state attorney general for guidance on quick get get through with the appropriate independent oversight so with that i will end my comments and welcome this
6:16 pm
to be on the agenda and i just thank you for allowing me the opportunity to say a little bit about this. >> chiefs report, i'll start with crime and violent prime. the good news is particularly considering where we started last year where we were up across the board. it is still early in the year and it's first month of data so, sale say this like i said last week and the previous week or the last meeting, that it's early in the years and pretty wildly the numbers swang and the smaller the number of bigger differences we see and i put that out there as an astricks. it's better to start off in a negative than inincrease in crime the the over all trends
6:17 pm
and there's a rates and robberies and we're at a 19% decrease and 157 compared to 193 assaults and wore down 9% and 169 compared to 185 last year and human trafficking we are down 80% and five last year and one this year and property crimes similar trends, we're down 44% in burglaries which is different than where we started out this time last year. motor vehicle theft we're down 12%. again, a very, very encouraging trend and it includes that category of car break-ins and reach out and general lar zinni and we're up 5% and so it's good
6:18 pm
news to report and it's still early in the year and just a bit of good news. auto burglar he's are up-to-date and our auto burglaries are up 9% compared to this time last year and 2020 it's down 33% and we look at 2019, it's down 33%. develop enter crimes, just going through more details with violent crimes in the breakdown and firearms is good news to report and we're down 59% and over all fire related crimes from where we rear last year and we're still up in 2020 and 2019 when you compare the double
6:19 pm
digit, 36% over 2020 and 73% over 2019. and as i said over all, gun violence is down significantly so far this year and we've had eight incidents and year to date compared to 24 this time last year and so that is encouraging news and again our homicides are flat as compared to this time last year. breakdown by station, central is at zero and gun related crimes even with last year's numbers, southern station is they had seven last year and one this year and we have two last time
6:20 pm
year park is down by one last year and zero this year and gun seizures, we are 13% less than we were this time last year and the numbers are small again and six gun seizures, 24 sun seizures over all gun seizures we're down 59% 71 this year compared to 112 last year and the breakdown is golden gate has a 13% decrease and in metro division has a 13% decrease and then all other gun seizure and that includes out of city and out of county gun seizures and
6:21 pm
connected to warrants or some type of police action and we're down 14%. significant cases in incidents, we had two shootings to report for this reporting period and one was at eddie and da visa dare owe and this is on january 30th, 2022 at 11:32p.m. the victim returned to her mother's hour when she noticed a vehicle turned on to eddie street from da visa dare owe and she heard gunshots hit her volkswagen and she took on running and circled the housing comment plex to her mother's back door and the victim suffered two gunshot pounds and transported in stable condition they located rifle casings and no arrests have been made at this time. the next one occurred at 17 and mission in mission directing and
6:22 pm
this is on and they located the victim who provided information regarding how he sustained a gunshot wound in a a witness provided a description of the suspect with later contacted dispatch and recanted the description a computer quarry revealed an active nobel felony parent for burglary and section 459 of the california personal code and in addition, two stairway orders from business and residents in on file as well and the victims was placed under arrest for the active arrest warrant and the investigation regarding the shooting is on going with a lot to be done on that and no one is in custody on the actual shooting. other significant incidents, west field security at the west field mall reported a broken window at the michael kors store located inside the mall three
6:23 pm
individuals were in the area of the broken window and it did not reveal the individuals breaking the window and inventory revealed that items missing from the window area was $2,500 worth of merchandise and significant incidents in the domestic violence in the 1200 block of sunny dale in ingleside and they responded to domestic violence incident at the subject refused to comply and resisted arrest and during the arrest, one officer sustained a broken nose and one officer had minor injuries and third had a explained risk. the subject was arrested for domestic violence and there was a terrorist threat against an urban employee and members of the public may not know it's the
6:24 pm
entity non-profit i believe, the monday profit who takeaway the den ter loin and you can see them posted on fix post assignments through out the tenderloin market street and the tenderloin community and they're there for safe passage and they don't have police power and they have to do police work. they're there to just make sure the sidewalks stay clear and to it to be there for members of the public who need assistance in what they can do and to assist some of the disorder and and they had been very helpful in doing. an employee was seen and heard by a supervisor threatening employees, including to kill
6:25 pm
them and the subject pled but was locked and arrested. so an arrest was made in that particular case. had there were bank robberies we believe are connected and the first one in the 3800 block of third street on the 25th of january and at chase bank on the 27th and the third was 600 block of eight street at the wells fargo bank and he was believed to be armed and the gun was seen and this person demanded money so our investigators and some evidence to indicate that these cases may be connected and we are investigating them as a bank robbery series. stunt driving events, there were events on saturday,
6:26 pm
january 29th at 1023p.m. there was a large stunt driving event at chess nut street and there were 300 cars and officers were able to move the cars on to highway 101 and northbound 19th avenue. at 10:45, another large group of cars showed up at 17th street in balboa and setting up for stunt driving event and side show. we have received some feedback from the public what is being done about these events and i would address that in a second. it happened at 11p.m. and the next meet up location would be at 42 avenue and that's on the west side of san francisco and 300 cars fled from directing station offices who responded in addition to our stunt driving response units and they fled
6:27 pm
southbound on sunset boulevard and vehicles left at a high rate of speed failing to stop for signals and other rule of the road and half of the vehicles on 280 northbound and the other half went into davy city and instagram post was noted on social media when the officers arrived and the city was hot and meet up and regroup in oakland. i want to talk about our response to these events. last year we activated a stunt driving response unit and protocols that head is heated by a unit and not staffed all the time when there's an activation and the leadership of the stunt driving unit called upon officers from directing stations through out the san francisco area to assemble and respond and
6:28 pm
we've been successful in breaking these events up in a much faster pace than before the creation of this unit and there's also a part of this work that our officers do that includes follow-up. whatever evidence the responding officers can obtain be it video feed, social media, evidence, that may identify people because poem are filming and posted it live and anything we can do legal low to get evidence we conduct follow-up investigation and when the evidence is there we will do a follow-up and he will women pound cars that are involved in these dangerous events. we've impounded the last count over 30 years since we started doing it and we will do that so the message is when we when and
6:29 pm
you run it's very dangerous and when people run at high rates of speeds disregarding the traffic rules of the road and running stop science and red lights and it's dangerous and that's why they're so dangerous and we can pursue the individuals involved after the fact and if we have the evidence, we will impound the car and to indicate a crime is being committed and we'll get a warrant and we will arrest these individuals so that is our strategy and we've been we have good outcomes on that and so, just want to put that to the public so you know what our response is and we'll we'll continue to do. directing strategies on our crime trends i mentioned at the beginning of this and outcomes are so far good with our strategy and we'll continue the strategies miss directing and our officers are focusing on
6:30 pm
burglar he's and burglar he's with the -- >> president cohen: chief, i have to hurry you up we're over the 10 minute allotment. >> ok. thank you, commissioner. so strategies really haven't changed so i'll get that far and i will skip the major events because there's not anything significant there and i just want to say happy lunar new year and we're looking forward to those festivities and that concludes today's report. >> commissioner elias, i'm not sure if that's -- >> currently? >> it was from previous but commissioner hamasaki and then me. >> that is from my previous regarding the consent calender. >> president cohen: got it. commissioner hamasaki.
6:31 pm
>> chief scott. >> this was kind of a big press row lows today. is there any reason that you decided to do this right now as there's being seated in a crime trial knowing this will go out all over the press? >> yes, there is. very specific reasons. this department and the members of this department are and have been very shaken for lack of a better term by what was brought out in court regarding non adherence to the m.o.u. and not adherence and in the letter so i know it needs to be agenized
6:32 pm
ultimately, what this is about, i welcome discussion on this is fairness to the officers who depend on fairness to do their jobs effectively. we have had -- >> this is no allegation. >> you asked me if i can finish answering your questions, please, finish. >> we depend, the members of this department, the members of the public we everybody who has anything to do with this m.o.u. and impacts of it all depend on this being a fair system that we have confidence in and that's what this is about. it's not about the court case and what the judges decision's is and i was very, very thoughtful and careful to not make it a legal debate and argument because it's not. this is what is stated in the
6:33 pm
letter and how the m.o.u. has been violated and how i came to that conclusion that the m.o.u. is been violated and what is fair in terms of the process when an investigation is being investigated for using force under the m.o.u. the poem that put their lives on the line and make split second decisions are also treated fairly as well as the public should be treated fairly and that's really important and that's what is this is about. i clear the comments and people twisting this and making it something that is not. i was very, very photographic you had in and the scope of the determination of this mou and the mou was put on-line so people can understand the authorities of two can terminate and under what reasons that is why that was done now.
6:34 pm
we have to do something about it and it needs to be done. it's not something we can wait on. >> it had to be dropped in front of the trials and where one of your officers is being charged for beating a black man, breaking his bones, and you want to put out propaganda began da, press releases trying to muddy the water, chief. >> no, no, no. hold on, commissioner. >> no, no, wait a minute! wait a minute! >> wait a minute! >> wait a minute! >> hold on, hold on. >> president cohen: we have to have order if we're going to talk about this. question need to have order. hamasaki, president. >> you had an m.o.u. that has been worked on by this commission for a year and it's been on the commission for
6:35 pm
almost four years now. we've dealt with it and we picked apart every line and you unilaterally issued a press release to i've never seen a more what appears to be a clear case of tampering with a jury. this is outrageous. i'm, you know, we've had a good relationship but i've been livid this afternoon and and i do understand why it was not done in a wasn't that wasn't a p.r. campaign and it doesn't feel like the commission let's have a discussion and what should we do because we all deal with the site body and we have signatory to m.o.u.s and at the end of the day your job goes through us.
6:36 pm
so when you ut decide that you want to put up information in front of a jury to poison the jury, how does that look? how does that look? a department where it looks like the police chief is trying to interfere with a criminal jury trial. >> president cohen, may i be heard, please. >> president cohen: yes, chief. >> commissioner hamasaki, first of all, let me just say this, what you just said is very serious. it's an attack on my credibility and my authority. it's an attack on what if you read the m.o.u. and i was in every discussion on m.o.u. with the district attorney and not maybe every discussion but i was involved in the writing and the drafting of that m.o.u. for two years and i understand what in
6:37 pm
the m.o.u. and the scope of my role and i understand the scope of the district attorney role and his authority to terminate which is written in m.o.u. and none of this was meant usurp anybody's authority because i have the authority per the m.o.u. to do just what i did ok, that's the first thing thing. the second thing is for you to accuse me trying to usurp and influence a jury is extremely insulting and disappointing because the judge makes her decisions in the criminal case and the officers is standing trial and will face the jury and the m.o.u. is something different. the judge said it's not my
6:38 pm
control role to determine whether this m.o.u. is followed it's someone else's role. that's someone else's role per the m.o.u. are the two people who have the right to terminate it and the district attorney or the police chief. that's exactly what i did. i take offense to your ook youizations that you just accused me and i think it's out of line and out of place for you to understand there's a component of this that speaks to the officers that have to do the work, i am not going to make a comment about that but i'm telling you, that is part of this discussion and that needs to be discussed in public and that's part of this discussion and the reason for the cancellation of the m.o.u. i think i've said as much as i
6:39 pm
can say without this being on the agenda. my letter is very transparent and very clear and it's not a stunt. this is something as soon as this is brought to light on friday and brought to my attention. i wanted to wait until i received the transcripts what was said and how it relates to the work that we all have been charged to do we have a responsibility per this m.o.u. to investigate crimes against victims in city. when we don't get information that the m.o.u. says we shall be a part of, i think, i hope there's not an argument that that's a problem and i hope there's not. i don't think what you are characterizing this as is accurate. i think a judge already made a finding that the police union motion was i don't know if the
6:40 pm
word was a way to get around the gag order. i understand that because i'm a defense attorney. we do things, we fight hard. i'ming going to say go ahead for them. to have the chief of police have date. things that have been outside of course. >> president cohen: we don't have the authorities to discuss this and we need to stop. we can table this for another date. commissioner elias. >> i know we're not at that point but to give people a little bit of comfort can we agree to agenized the m.o.u. for next week? >> i'm not sure what i'm doing. >> my comments were to ask an agenda because i think that the
6:41 pm
m.o.u. was commissioner dejesus baby she was involved in that and it's president cohen had aspects that you can created and it's important and i was because the timing is is the public deserves to hear more of the facts instead of these tidbits of information we're receiving so i too would join in a request to agenized this item. i was socked to receive the e-mails 30 minutes before commission because you give up a heads-up when it comes up. i was a little taken back too. >> is there anyone else that would like to comment? >> or speak to the chiefs report. we'll keep moving forward.
6:42 pm
thank you. call the next item. >> members of the public that would like to make public. >> aarti: ing regarding line item 5 the chiefs report press star 3 now. good evening caller you have two minutes. caller, you have two minutes. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. if. >> we have this discussion. >> hello. >> yes, we can hear you. >> we're having difficulty on your side. i've been following this
6:43 pm
discussion. and i have heard how the chief tried his best to explain the situation and is very convoluted. what i want to say this. this item should be put on the agenda and so that i say this because it doesn't look nice from someone like me and i participated in all your discussion and we can be a straight sheeter but it doesn't look nice for this back and fourth which goes nowhere. we must be educated on the issues ex we have to have the ability to discern and in this
6:44 pm
case, if and when this matter is put on the agenda, the chief will give hopefully a better explanation is that we the people can also understand what really is happening. thank you, very much. thank you, caller. president cohen that's the end of public comment. >> line item 6, discussion. report on recent d.p.a. activities and announcements, commission discussion will be limited to determine whether to calender the issues raised for future commission meeting. the december 2021 monthly statistical report. and presentation of the third quarter report. director henderson.
6:45 pm
thank you. let me give you my numbers before i give you the update. we're at 39 case that's have been opened so far this year and this time last year we were almost 70 case and wove closed and 35 cases and so far this year and we have cases pending and we sustained throw cases and mediated a singular case and we have to maintain any cases at this time last year and we have 32 cases whose investigation have gone beyond nine month investigations this time last year we were at 36 cases and of those 43 cases 18 of those are told and in terms of the pending
6:46 pm
cases, there are 10 cases pending with the commission and seven cases pending with the chief for the wokely trends and we have i'm going to do the top. the top allegations we see the two top trending allegations at 17% and one of which the officer behaved a spoken becoming of an officer and the second one also 17% of the allegations for the last two weeks were for an officer allegedly failing to take required action. most of the case that's came in with calls for service and involving assault, reckless driving cases and a large traffic incident and as a result of that, write the accurate incident reports in terms of allegations broken down by the directing i'm going to say the largest one, 12 allegations from
6:47 pm
central directing. >> aarti: ing the failure to write and control traffic failure to write tickets and to address traffic in terms and southern stations call for back up and inaccurate incidents reports and northern station and calls allegations regarding medical attention needed from the public and the tenderloin six separate allegations about crime, specifically relate today na neighborhood. in terms of our monthly statistics, in december, of the 57 cases received in december 33% and involved officers speaking to behavior inappropriately were the allegation and 33% were failures to take required action and #% followed officers failing to properly investigate a case and the rest of that allegations are the top are in the report and
6:48 pm
there are 126 allegations all of which are breaken down and available and it's just my report for the regard of the statistics and if you want details they're available on our website and in terms of the audit tonight, we have the results with compliance with ddo8.10 for calender year 2020 in terms of operations dpa is coordinating with different i can bridge and what we're trying to do we have a proposal to create an line search function that will allow speaking to someone and have a case looked up to do it manually coming to our website and being able to see the status of their case and what is going on so we hope that proposal gets picked for the final selection and we're partnering with the city the next step is for the city partners to make that selection.
6:49 pm
in terms of outreach and i spoke at the welcome disparities town hall from felicia jones on the state of black san france gives them an update on row forms and the wrack that's been going on in the police commission and from d.p.a. on the front steps of city hall and i spoke with the gough fender and that were there and spoke as well and race disparities and policing both generally and specific for the audience and answer questions from the group. addressing community awareness about d.p.a. and the officers offered specifically for youth
6:50 pm
and for investigative protocols, we received more messages from complaints threatening staff and the reason that i'm bringing this up is because a couple of weeks ago we talked about implementing a protocol that we have in coordination with the special investigation division to do threat assessments when these incidents happen and we're starting to use those protocols in the office as a benefit for the staff that is in the office doing that work. you know, we're all on a hybrid model the incompetent views that take place and the investigations that take place so there are still frequently, well, everybody, people are in the office and that are doing their work. in terms of the updates, we
6:51 pm
received an order this week from the office of the administrative hearings and this is a big deal and that is the discipline case ruling from the commission and one of our case that's was both upheld and the reason i'm talking about this is this is the third time that the dba has appeared in front of a law judge at the office of administration hearings and to defend not just our work in our findings they were all upheld and it's a big deal and i wanted to mention it and i don't think we've reported on these in the past and we have been having not all the also in
6:52 pm
conclusion, one of the things that i had been contemplating that i wanted to raise for approval, was with the latest officer-involved shooting from january 20th, and involving work outside of san francisco and what i would like to do if commissioners are centered is do after an action report just talking about beyond just the work that gets done by d.p.a. and after action analysis about it will allow us to compare and
6:53 pm
contrast the efficiencies or best practices of how we actually all conduct an officer-involved shooting from the perspective of the seville i don't know oversight agency. this is great thing that hopefully folks would be interested in and having presentation of course i just want to approving or making that suggestion for us. present tonight is i want to outline what i instructed my senior investigators attending on these calls is they are making notes to record the requests, questions and demands that are made during these meetings so that we may follow-up at the d.p.a. and to record instances where demands
6:54 pm
or questions are brought up from the department so they can track and be tracked. again, later so they can see the status and what the answers are. if folks have questions for the department of police accountability, they can contact us through the website and sfgov.org/dpa and you can contact us through the phone (415)241-7711 and there are several items left to be discussed on the agenda that will involve the d.p.a. and the policy summations and i believe that we'll conclude my update and presentation for the past two weeks from the department of police accountability. >> thank you. any questions for mr.
6:55 pm
henderson. commissioner. >> thank you, president cohen. i had two questions, one is clarification on a previous idea, i just wanted to get clarity cindy' request to agenized the mou questions and is is a second it's an idea we need to spend time and anything that requires that many to come o an agreement of how we work together to ensure accountability and i'd love to get clarity on that idea.
6:56 pm
>> in second is needed and any commissioner can request something to be on the agenda and it's to the purview of the privilege of the grove to grant it and i will agenized it. i don't know if it will be next week because i need to compare with what we are having on the agenda for next week but we will work this out. it was dropped on me also. thank you to the commissioner and the public. >> i appreciate the clarity, thank you. president and my question around the historic alanal sis on this report and thank you so much for your diligence around collecting all of these numbers and data. and i just guess i have coming from a place of just concern, right, when i look at the numbers in the trends going back to 2016, and i see that there is
6:57 pm
minute million impact in reducing the number of complaints, the number of case that's go through and when i, based on my experience and the community and supporting people and encouraging people to submit these questions we know that this is just the dip of the eye bus so i would love to get a better sense of what the department is doing to set quantifiable measures to be able to really, really make an impact on reducing this and obviously there are many processes in place but this is concerning when i see five years of the same patterns given there are so many recommendations of the how to improve these outcomes. so that is just a question for the chief if you have any
6:58 pm
feedback on what is being proactively done to find solutions to these challenges? >> >> can i answer? >> >> was that to me or the chief? >> he said the chief but directed it towards you director henderson. >> i have that explicitly and i've gone through in the past at least for d.p.a. i can't talk to the complaints that may come in through internal affairs or complaints to the department but four complaints that come in from the public to the civilian oversight agency since taking over in 2017, are increasing in terms of volume of community coming to making complaints and allegations has increased over 53% from that time period and i would say this is a question we're discussed and addressed in depth here at the police commission have been from a number of changes in terms of
6:59 pm
our policies that we've made and not the least of which have partnering with language access lines so that folks that are mono long wall with communicate with it more easily and effectively across a number of different panels gaining access to our services. that includes coming in-person. being on a traffic line so people can walk in and working in coordinating through the phones or writing a letter in anyway you can contact us, we allow and received those complaints to come in that could initiate an investigation. i believe, that coupled with the specific and intentional outreach that my division has made, coordinating with community partners neighborhood agencies and public has
7:00 pm
increased both the presence of what d.p.a. does and zoo it's been measured and recorded. [please stand by]
7:01 pm
>> police chief scott: through some other method we can prove and hopefully not make that same mistake again or reverse the disciplinary trends. the disciplinary review board comes together quarterly. there's a commissioner that's part of this discussion and together, d.p.a., the san francisco police department teams come up with recommendations that are forwarded to the police commission through me. so i think that process is very helpful. it's been a good process. it's a good collaboration.
7:02 pm
totally in the spirit of what some of the d.o.j. findings was in -- were in 2016 suggesting and really recommending that the department and d.p.a. work collaboratively on these types of issues. so that was a by product of that work and there's been some good suggestions that the commission gets to hear and we get to track them and put things on the table and make the situation better. if you want to hear more about that, i can get more information offline, but definitely welcome you to explore that and maybe you have some thoughts about how we can improve that process. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. commissioner elias, i see your name in the queue but i'm not sure if that's an accurate list. >> vice president elias: yes.
7:03 pm
that is correct. i'm happy to talk to you offline about it and the disciplinary review board. so director henderson, can you send those opposed decisions to the commission office so that they're sent to all of the commissioners. i think all of the commissioners need to have the decisions affirming our work. >> i think i can. it really is a big deal which is why i talked about. kind of the stuff that goes on behind the scenes. i'm happy to share it with all of you. i'll send you the notification. enough for them to raise the flag to tell us in this way that they as well consider this a big deal. >> vice president elias: i see the decision and they quoted from your attorney. so it's really impressive.
7:04 pm
so if you can ensure that all of the commissioners get a copy. >> absolutely. >> president cohen: all right. let's take public comment. >> secretary: for members of the public please press star three six for line item six, d.p.a. director's report. good evening, caller, you have two minutes. >> caller: again, it's a similar situation and it's very convoluted and we need to fine tune the way we do business.
7:05 pm
in the military, we have standard operating procedures which gives you some guidance. now, there is no way you can have a dialog if you're not with facts or giving an orientation or an explanation to have a good discussion. and this is not the first time this has happened. it's happened before. ya'll do not have a checklist on how things go on an agenda.
7:06 pm
sometimes in an emergency, you may speak on the issue because it's an emergency. but i hope in the future, somebody gives ya'll an orientation as to what should go on the agenda and if it's on the agenda and it's very convoluted, an orientation has to be given on how to simplify it so that we all have a good dialog. thank you very much. >> secretary: thank you, caller. president cohen, that is the end of public comment. >> president cohen: great. let's call the next item. commission reports. >> secretary: line item seven, commission reports. discussion. commission reports will be limit today a brief discussion
7:07 pm
and announcements. determined whether to calendar any of the issues raised for future commission meetings. commissioner president's report, commissioners reports, and commissioner announcements on scheduling of items for a future commission meeting. action. >> president cohen: thank you. at this time, i don't have anything to report. last week's ceremony of valor was very inspiring. again, we commend the men and women that were recognized in our department and that's it in terms of my report. are there any other commissioners that have something they'd like to report to the group? commissioner yee. >> commissioner yee: thank you, madam chair. i guess i've been invited to journey back into birmingham,
7:08 pm
alabama, mississippi, and also memphis, tennessee, to learn more about civil rights fight that the people faced over in the south and i've been invited by chief scott and his command staff. i'm looking forward to that and i'll be happy to report back to that, but more importantly, i just want to wish everybody a happy lunar new year. everyone stay safe and also thank the chief for coming out with a flyer that's coming out and it's called "stop a.a.p.i. hate." this is the similar number that came out we have an increase of 567% of hate crime against the
7:09 pm
aapi community. now we've just got to take action and make sure it comes down. looking forward to a great year and the year of the tiger. thank you. >> president cohen: thank you for that on lunar new year greetings. anyone else have any -- commissioners? commissioner carter-oberstone. >> commissioner: i'll just say briefly at a couple of meetings, the aclu is quite a big brawl and we've seen policy over the years and it was a great discussion. we talk mostly about a lot of kind of systemic reforms in the commission that which is an
7:10 pm
impressive group in terms of the diversity they're very focused and they've been working really diligently and it was a really illuminating conversation and that's it for me. >> president cohen: thank you. appreciate that. any questions for any of the commissioners? all right. seeing none. we can keep moving. let's take public comment. >> vice president elias: are we done doing the request agenda items after that or did you want to do it now? >> president cohen: yeah. i was blending it all together. but let's call the agenda items. go ahead, cindy. >> vice president elias: thank you. so i think i've already made the request to agendaize the m.o.u. and the second request that i'm going to make is to
7:11 pm
agendaize the clearance rates given d.p.h. staff on their december 2021 monthly statistical report in reviewing the complaints that they receive nearly one third involved neglect of duty -- i'm sorry, failure to do their job in some form or fashion coupled with the other report that they're going to be reporting on which shows that i think 80% of their improper findings by allegations in neglective duty. so given those two numbers, i think that we need to agendaize the clearance rate of what sfpd is doing in terms of investigating crime. i also was made aware that business coalitions have also made complaints to the police department regarding the failure to take complaints from business owners and have them
7:12 pm
prosecuted. also, some of the clearance rates here in san francisco are far below the national average and i think that we as the commission and the public deserve an explanation why as to what the department's doing and to address those situations. so i'm going to ask that that be agendaized as well. >> president cohen: did you get all that? >> director: could i specify all that so it's not a comparison of apples of oranges. i think i understand what you're asking for. maybe then if either internal affairs of whichever department it is can compare on their allegations for those categories and then correlate that to sustained rates from those allegations like d.p.a. does with its allegations and sustained rates. i think that's what you're asking. i just wanted to make it
7:13 pm
clearer or easier louisiana that isn't what i'm asking, but that's a great idea to agendaize because i think it goes to my previous request earlier to agendize or have internal affairs so i think that goesagendize or have inte affairs so i think that goes to what and did they finish their investigation and once they do how many of these are being forwarded for prosecution and how many are being closed out. so i think based on some of the national averages, we're far below and we need to figure out why. so i think they are related in some form or fashion. thank you for that, director henderson. >> police chief scott: commissioner, just for point of clarification, would you actual like the national and state averages to be part of that report so we can see how the
7:14 pm
san francisco police department compares to national and state averages? >> vice president elias: absolutely. >> police chief scott: appreciate it. thank you. >> president cohen: commissioner hamasaki. >> commissioner hamasaki: just a brief followup point. i understand that the rules are that commissioners can place an item on the agenda and if the next meeting is not available, it's mandatory at the meeting after that. so at least according to police commission rules of order. but i would implore the president to consider, considering all the concerns that have been arisen here, considering the nature of the allegations from the chief and the way that it's actually blown up in the media and really i think impacted both
7:15 pm
the department and the criminal justice system. i would respectfully request we have it on next week and that is within your purview. obviously, you can decide. one other question, is the m.o.u. already terminated or is it possible that you could maintain the m.o.u. while the commission and give the commission a chance to weigh in? >> police chief scott: thank you, commissioner. what the m.o.u. states and the agreement is if either party terminates the m.o.u., it has to be done in writing and then 15 days after the notification is when the m.o.u. is actually terminated. so it's 15 days. it also calls for if the
7:16 pm
parties agree or disagree about these issues, it calls for a meeting within five business days. so i have requested that meeting as well with the district attorney if he elects to do that. so we can talk about the actual substance of this decision and 15 days after the notification is when the m.o.u. actually terminates. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay so five days from -- >> police chief scott: 15 business days. >> commissioner hamasaki: is it five days as well, i guess that would be monday. >> police chief scott: yes. is that referring to the meeting with the district attorney if he elects to? >> commissioner hamasaki: correct. >> police chief scott: five days, yes. >> commissioner hamasaki: okay. i think that's good because it would give us time to discuss it here and give you an opportunity to discuss with the district attorney and maybe this is something we can find a resolution to. thank you. >> police chief scott: thank
7:17 pm
you. >> vice president elias: any other commissioners have any other requests to agendize. i know commissioner had seconded my request. is there any else you would like to see agendized for next week? >> commissioner: no. i think that's the one item that's really pressing right now i think. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. i appreciate that. sergeant youngblood. sorry. director henderson. >> director: i have two questions. one i mentioned earlier at the beginning of the meeting, but i would like to agendize, i don't know if we need to agendize. if we can have a vote on the matrix being adopted and i can submit a draft for review on the commissions on the things i have reported so far as to whether or not that be the matrix that gets resolved.
7:18 pm
it could either be apart of my report or it could be apart of the ongoing agenda with. but just to capture ongoing concerns that are raised at these meetings to make sure that questions get answered and directives are followed. my suggestion is just to raise it and we can vote on it and move it forward or that it gets agendized. whatever's easiest. >> vice president elias: perhaps it would be easiest if we can get it agendized for next week and then we can get it posted on the commission website so the public also is aware. because i think that you have posted this matrix before and we posted it. so, perhaps, you can update it, get it posted and we can agendize this for a vote next week. >> director: perfect. >> vice president elias: with president cohen's approval. >> director: and the other question, i have two things. that was the first one and the second one i raised issue i didn't hear a response back on whether or not the commission is interested in having the after action report from the
7:19 pm
officer-involved shooting to evaluate efficiencies and best practices. >> vice president elias: i think that we would. >> president cohen: i would think yes, absolutely. >> vice president elias: okay. >> director: thank you. >> vice president elias: you'll send that to each of us? >> director: i will. i'll take care of it. i wanted to make sure there is an interest in having that report created just so that we could see what the results were. that's it. that's all i had. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. all right. sergeant youngblood, can you call the next item. >> secretary: yes, ma'am. line item eight will be tabled until later in the evening. line item nine, presentation of the d.p.a.'s 2021 first
7:20 pm
amendment compliance audit of sfpd's records pursuant to department general order 8.10. discussion. >> good evening, president cohen, vice president elias, commissioners, chief scott and members of the public. i'm the director of audits for the police accountability. tonight i'm here to present on the police department's compliance with general order 8.10. i last presented to you on this topic in july 2021 when i discussed the audit scope and objectives. tonight's presentation is on the scope of the audits. next slide, please. as an overview, d.p.a. issued the final reports on december 7th, 2021. this is also available to the public on d.p.a.'s website. with the requirements of general order 8.10.
7:21 pm
the report makes eight recommendations with requirements of this policy. this report also includes a section separate from the findings and recommendations to bring to the attention of the police commission and police department through the matters related to d.g.o.a.10. the report contains three appendixes. and other jurisdictions and the police department's responses to the audit in our recommendations. next slide, please. the next two slides will recap why we perform this work and the audit's scope and objectives. it discovers police department investigations involving first amendment activities and limits how the police department collects information when planning for first amendment events. next slide, please. the overall objective of this
7:22 pm
audit was determined if the police department in 8.10. to accomplish this objective, we reviewed the police department's performance on police commission notification. member training, file management, and information gathered for first amendment events. additionally, our audit looked at the effectiveness of the guidance and general order on when it applies to criminal investigations. this audit was in compliance. our findings are supported by efficient and appropriate evidence. next slide, please. general order 8.10 requires that d.p.a. reports of the commission on police department activity governed by the guidelines. to fulfill this requirement, the police department reported to d.p.a. but did not authorize or deny any investigation in first amendment activities in 2020. d.p.a. did identify areas where the depend and police commission could improve in practices and policies. this image on the slide
7:23 pm
provides an overview of our audit findings. for the purpose of tonight's presentation, i'm going to discuss two of these findings we believe are most relevant to the commission. the first is our findings related to the ordinance and the second is on the police department notification of the police commission on requests for d.g.o. investigations. i'm happy to answer any questions you have about any of the other findings. next slide, please. so we found that the d.g.o.a. helps guidance on when the order of investigations is limited. it has a section to address when the order but the direction it provides is nonspecific. d.g.o.8.10 every criminal investigation that involves first amendment activities. and that quote, these guidelines do not apply to criminal investigations that do not involve first amendment activities. however, d.g.o.8.10 does not create any guidance or example
7:24 pm
to help when the order applies. further, although one police department stated it involves the objective and interpretation of the guidelines, the police department has not issued any department to help interpret and supply the order. the risk here is within specific objective guidance, members may be hindered in their ability to comply with the d.g.o.8.10's requirements. d.p.a. reviewed first amendment related policies from three other jurisdictions. this review is found in appendix b of the report. d.p.a. noted that the chicago police department has a similar policy directed as first amendment related information. this policy explains the type of investigations that do and do not require authorization to investigate. the chicago police department's policy includes examples of permissible and impermissible related investigations. this slide is an example that the chicago uses to illustrate to its members of an
7:25 pm
impermissible investigation that would violate the first amendment. the result of this finding, d.p.a. recommends the san francisco police department work with the police commission to clarify and provide examples of when it applies to criminal investigations. the police department concurred with this recommendation and said the updated schedule will be determined by the police commission. next slide, please. the second finding we'll discuss tonight is in 2020, the police department did not provide the police commission with timely confirmation that there were no requests for general order 8.10 investigations. this is finding number four in our report on page seven. it requires that a designated member of the police commission monitor the police department's compliance with the guidelines and review request in authorizations governed by the order. the police department uses a log that allows for commissioners to review d.g.o.8.10 requests. it is the police department's practice to sends this log for the police commission we view
7:26 pm
even when there are no requests for investigations. to confirm there were no requests until september 2020. the risk is without this information, the police commission cannot effectively monitor the police department's cliens with general order 8.10. d.p.a. recommends that the police department ensure that the police commission receive the d.g.o.8.10 monthly. the police department concurred with this recommendation and said they will work with the commission to complete a process that's more efficient and effective in delivering the log. next slide, please. as briefly mentioned, during our work, we identified three other matters that called for the attention of the police commission and police department. discussion of these other matters begins on page 11 of the report. for the first matter, we found out the police commission did not have a member designated to monitor sfpd's compliance from may 10 through august 2020.
7:27 pm
the complete number of members and the police commission did not choose a successor until september of that year. the commission foregoes the i don't ever sight required by the order and the absence of sfpd reporting as we discussed in previous slides. the police commission and plans can help the police commission continue monitoring the general order even if a member departs from the commission. the second matter that we noted on the second bullet is that the police department does not have specific guidance on gathering information from social media sites. this relates to general order 8.10 because social media sites serves as a platform for groups to express their rights. department members may be unaware of the civil liberties of accessing and using information from such sites. the consideration of the police commission and police department published by the
7:28 pm
united states department of justice the third matter, we noted that changes in technology warrant the police commission and police department d.g.o. requirements on photograph recording of first amendment events. d.g.o.8.10 states that equipment should not be brought without written authorization. however, this requirement is unchanged from the 1999 version of the order and predates technology changes that include the police department's adoption of body warn cameras in 2016. an outdated policy and may no longer be affected in achieving their goals. the international association of chiefs of police provides principles for policies for technology that capture, monitor and share visual images. also, we found that other jurisdictions address some of these technologies in their
7:29 pm
policy. the metropolitan. next slide, please. the next two slides covering remaining audit findings and recommendations. i'm trying to adhere to my 10-minute time limit. i do not plan on addressing these in depth, but i will answer any questions you have about them. the slide on the screen is related to member training and filed construction with the recommendation for these findings. next slide, please. this slide provides an overview of our findings related to d.g.o.8.10 and first amendment event information collection. the police department also concurred with these recommendations. with these recommendations, the
7:30 pm
recommendations in this report, we do follow up with the police department on the status of their implementation and we do plan on revisiting our recommendations and the status when we perform the audit on 2021 activities. this concludes my presentation and i'm happy to answer any questions that you might have about our report. >> president cohen: i have a question about your report. in the findings, were they ranked in priority or order of importance or were they just random? >> it's not random, but it's also not order of importance. it just followed the flow of d.g.o.8.10 itself. >> president cohen: i didn't understand the last part. >> it just follows the flow of d.g.o.8.10's requirements. >> president cohen: any other
7:31 pm
questions? i see cindy elias and i see max carter-oberstone. >> vice president elias: thank you, president cohen. do we know when this d.g.o. is up for revision? >> i know it was last revised i believe in 2008 and, you know rgs part of the background information -- >> vice president elias: hold on a second. chief? >> police chief scott: commissioner, i'm going to get that information because it's on d.g.o.'s schedule and i don't have it in front of me, but i'll get it before we finish this conversation. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. another question is what kind of first amendment activities does this d.g.o. cover? because i noticed in the old version, it doesn't outline any of it. >> i think reconciled to our finding number one in the report is that the policy itself doesn't contain really any guidance on when the order applies. it doesn't provide any specific
7:32 pm
examples so we found it very limited in generalize so it's subjective to whatever the officer decides? >> um, that -- >> director: let me jump in and answer that is it's more yes than not, but more importantly, there's not enough definition to allow for accountability in the procedure to make sure that there are consequences for behaviors. that's the bigger issue to me in addition to having it be unclear for the officers, there's not a tool on the back end for there to be real accountability. that's why the language has to be redrafted. >> vice president elias: do we know what the policies are around sfpd's use of social media as an investigative and monitoring tool? >> director: we don't have a current policy right now. this is part of the reason why given the entire report and the staff that you're receiving. this is why every time that there's a reporting, it's just
7:33 pm
0000. it's not that we don't have instances that may need further investigation or that we don't have issues that trigger a first amendment analysis and in some parts department or interactions with the public. it's just we don't have an appropriate d.g.o. as made evidence by this report to address it adequately and that's the flag that we're raising. >> vice president elias: are there any department bulletins or other officers to address this situation? i don't know if you can answer that or the chief can answer that. >> police chief scott: i'm sorry, commissioner, i was trying to get the answer to your question. i missed your question. >> vice president elias: is there any department that the officers provide any guidance on how and when to use social
7:34 pm
media to monitor individuals. are there any department bulletins or any other guidance that the department provides these officers with respect to their ability to monitor and investigate individual social media? >> police chief scott: the answer's no. not for investigative. this is one of the policies that we were working on with some of our stakeholders outside the department. those discussions have stalled somewhat. so we have some draft recommendations from stakeholders. we have some draft recommendations from the department. but we have to do a lot of work to finish the next part of this too. as we advise our work groups. this is a very important issue, but definitely needs to be policy and we started working on it and it got installed when the discussions were stopped. so we will continue that as we
7:35 pm
were planning on processes, this would be one of the policies that will go through a work group. >> vice president elias: and the recommendations will also be incorporated in. because one of the recommendations that i'm really concerned about is that officers are being placed in a unit without training and there's criminal investigations on how to utilize individual social media and ensure individual civil liberties aren't violated. i mean, it's recommendation number two where they're being placed in units, special investigation units which the primary focus is investigation and they're not even being trained. secondly, what is the training? what's the training that is being provided to these officers to ensure that there aren't violations of first amendment rights? >> police chief scott: no. all your points are noted and
7:36 pm
these are and were apart of the discussion with the policy development in some areas. there are recommendations on paper both in the department and actually working with members of the public defender us office office and we want to develop many if not all of the points. so that's still on the table and there's a lot of work to get to an actual policy. >> vice president elias: i think you and i have had discussions reaching out to the bar association. do you have any specific examples you can provide recommendations you can provide to the department for the use of social media for investigative purposes? i know this is a recommendation, but providing specific examples for them because when i read the report and mr. flair, you went really fast, i didn't see the specific
7:37 pm
examples. i did notice the chicago one. >> director: there are more and i believe he said in washington, d.c. or maryland, and in our full report, there are more examples but i think also dianna rosenstein is also on the call. she just jumped in. she should be in the chat. >> can i clarify, the report itself contains a link to the united states department of justice. they have a publication called "developing a policy on the use of social media and intelligence and use of activities guidance and recommendations." and so that's on page 11 of the report and it's hyperlinked. so if you click on it, it can take you directly to that publication. >> director: as a reminder, that full report is posted on our website if folks are paying attention and want to actually see the full report. just want to mention that. >> vice president elias: no. i appreciate this audit because i think it's really important given the fact that social media is now sort of the new
7:38 pm
wave, right. and so obviously a policy from '99 cannot provide officers the appropriate guidance or the public a comfort knowing that there's accountability for these types of events. the other thing i wanted to ask is why if we can immediately rectify number four and have this sent to the commission immediately. i think that the prior commissioner that had left, you know, i think it's important to have all commissioners. >> police chief scott: commissioner, the officers that you just mentioned in your last comments and inquiry, those officers actually are assigned to the special investigations division, but particularly the city hall of dignitary and protection detail. so they are actually not assigned to investigate.
7:39 pm
i believe it's two officers, but i can follow up on that. so i know that's part of this -- they're part of this unit and investigation. not those investigations, but that are subject to this. >> vice president elias: that's where we have a lot of protests. they should definitely be trained if they're going to be in an area where this is happening. come on. >> police chief scott: yeah. i understand. they have a different role though. i do understand that. i'll follow up more and i do have an answer to 8.10. it was in progress, on the schedule, approved by the commission. it was paused hearing from mr. flair and the executive director henderson that there would be recommendations coming through that we should consider incorporating more incorporating into the d.g.o. so now we have to start it up before the commission is finalized. but it is on the schedule to currently be revised. >> vice president elias: great. then i'm going to ask you to
7:40 pm
provide us an update at the next commission as to how you're getting it up and running and when we can expect some results and confirmation that the reports that have been produced thus far have been provided to each commissioner. and with that i will yield my time for my colleagues to ask questions. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. commissioner max carter-oberstone. >> i was just going to jump in quickly and confirm what chief scott just iterated. we got a note from sfpd that we were waiting for the audit to conclude before a working group was started to update this d.g.o. and based on information that we received, it looks like there are no other department notices that we're aware of that address or update this particular d.g.o. but we look forward to working with the department being part of a
7:41 pm
working group. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. commissioner carter-oberstone. i think you were next up. >> commissioner: thank you. just one comment. first, i want to say one thing all the reports have in common is they are all readable in ways that are really easy to digest and grasp. visual aids, etc. so i just want to give a shout-out to director henderson and everyone at d.p.a. who works on these reports. i think it's one thing to make information public, it's another thing to make information true and you always do a wonderful job. so it's an important public service and i personal
7:42 pm
appreciate it so thank you. >> vice president elias: and thereafter. >> commissioner: if it doesn't hurt. i had a question about the records. as of today, i think i don't have the report in front of me. i think it's finding three, as of today, have those records been purged? >> police chief scott: finding three, um, commissioner, i believe those records have been purged. i'll follow up with you. i know there was a schedule by the commanding officer of that division that handles those and i believe i know on that last report that that was disclosed that that was in process. so i just need to confirm that it's been done. the records that should be purged, i need to confirm that's been done. >> commissioner: great. thank you. and just a small point of clarification, mr. flair, you
7:43 pm
listed a number of recommendations that he said the department concurred with. just two points on that, one, are there any recommendations the department did not concur with and, second, what does that actually mean? does that mean the department is supporting revisions to 8.10 that reflect these recommendations? what does that mean? >> [ indiscernible ] and then we have the new congressional district 40. >> police chief scott: somebody -- i can answer your question. i think we got some interference. >> vice president elias: sergeant youngblood can you ensure that everyone's muted other than the speaking party, please. >> secretary: yes, ma'am. >> police chief scott: thank you. vice president elias, there's eight recommendations and i can run down real quick to give an update on where we are and i also would like to answer commissioner carter-oberstone's
7:44 pm
question about the concurrent. >> vice president elias: i think given our time limitations and you're going to have to report on it next week. why don't you wait with the eight recommendations and answer the question. >> police chief scott: okay. great. thank you. vice president elias, also, if i could just earlier about the record destruction. so what we have set up and communicated that we would be part of with that at the end of the quarter of this year and that will include setting up a schedule to purge our records according to record retention rules and regulations. so those records are actively being reviewed now for which ones need to be destroyed from there an ongoing table will be set up to make sure that we are
7:45 pm
purging records that need to be purged when they need to be purged. >> commissioner: and then i know there were some sound interruptions. one other thing i asked about is are there any recommendations that the department does not concur with? i'm sorry, chief, you're on mute. >> police chief scott: sorry about that. there's not of the eight that i mentioned, there's a partial concurrence and i can explain and report what that means and what that looks like as vice president elias has directed next week when we agendize this. or when the commission agendizes it. >> commissioner: appreciate it, chief. thank you. >> police chief scott: thank you. >> vice president elias: did you have any other questions, commissioner?
7:46 pm
okay. i think commissioner hamasaki is next in the queue. >> commissioner hamasaki: my questions have been answered. thank you. >> vice president elias: okay. thank you. in the queue next is chief of staff dianna rosenstein. >> [ indiscernible ] >> vice president elias: okay. so no other questions. i think we can move on to public comment. >> secretary: at this time, the public is welcome to make public comment regarding line item nine the d.p.a.'s compliance report on d.g.o. 8.10. if you would like to make public comment, please press star three now. and vice president elias, there is no public comment. >> vice president elias: thank you. next item, please. >> secretary: line item ten, presentation of d.p.a.'s third
7:47 pm
quarter 2021 quarterly report. discussion. >> good evening, commissioners. president cohen, vice president elias. i want to send a warm welcome to our newest commissioner. my name is dianna rosenstein. i'm the acting chief of staff of the police department of accountability. and i will be presenting the d.p.a.'s third quarter report that the statistical report will cover statistical data from our office from july of 2021 to september 2021. september to january which is the fourth quarter will be covered and including in our annual report coming very soon. thank you, sergeant youngblood
7:48 pm
for bringing up our presentation. of i was having technical difficulties, not sure why. but thank you for doing the presentation for me. if we could have the next slide, please. so in the third quarter of 2021, the d.p.a. opened 198 spaces. as you can see when we compare the trends, we have been pretty steady in 2021 over the three quarters in the past in 2019 and 2020, our numbers fluctuated probably attributable to the pandemic as well as the tragedy of the george floyd case. next slide please, stacy. in quarter three, d.p.a. closed
7:49 pm
201 cases totalling 550 allegations. next slide, please. we found in quarter three, d.p.a. found improper conduct on 35 of 550 allegations. as vice president elias pointed out earlier, the main improper conduct finding involved neglect of duty. and if we could have the next slide, please. so the past three allegations of improper conduct for quarter three included officers failing to take required action which is a subset of the bigger rubric of neglect of duty, 31% of our improper conduct allegations involved this allegation. 11% involved the officers behaving or speaking inappropriately and last but not least, in terms of three --
7:50 pm
the top three, the officers used unnecessary force or fail today comply in some other manner. we also have the 3% representing that the officers conducted improper search or seizure. so that is the statistical breakdown for the 35 allegations where we did find improper conduct. next slide, please. this slide represents the demographics of our complainants in quarter three. they look pretty much the same. we continue to have a large percentage of individuals who decline to state their demographic and that is something that we honor for them in terms of gender and race. next slide, please.
7:51 pm
again, the majority of our complainants in quarter three declined to state their demographics. however, of those that did provide us with demographic information, the majority in terms of age in the 31 to 40-year-old age range. also, we broke down for you how we received our complaints. the majority of our complaints as you can see from the pie chart were received either by phone or online. next slide, please. these are the demographics of individuals that were contacted or chose to participate in our mediation program. again, we do give the option to our complainants to decline to state their demographics which
7:52 pm
is in that category tied with the other demographic meaning that three people declined to state and three appear to be white. self-identified. next slide, please. so in quarter three, we did have a series of recommendations that we made to sfpd with respect to our policy department. we did -- we recommend that sfpd's website and i think this is something we discussed with the commission also and this involves that accountability matrix that director henderson previously mentioned. the recommendations we made were that the -- that we make the policy making process that is currently being discussed and being revised in d.g.o.3.01
7:53 pm
more clear and concise. include a calendar on sfpd's website so that public is aware of how policy making is moving. include a summary of recommendations that is the matrix that we have been discussing. make the recommendations available for public consumption and display a final draft of the policies as they are based after discussion so that the public has an opportunity to review them and make comments about them if they so wish before the policies end up on the commission's agenda. those were the main policy recommendations that we made in quarter three. and next slide, please last but not least, we're proud of our
7:54 pm
sb 14 numbers. records that are enumerated in penal code 8.237 under the public records act. we continue to make tremendous headway. we have released in quarter three, 48 cases. 9,000 pages plus or minus with respect to bodily injury records. about 20,000 patients of officer-involved shooting records and 2,538 pages that pertain to dishonesty. and i welcome any questions any of you may have. >> president cohen: all right. let me see. i see no names in the chat.
7:55 pm
are there any hands? commissioner yee, is that your hand i see? no. okay. >> i assume that means i did a thorough and complete job. so thank you everyone. >> president cohen: that's right. thank you. director henderson, you're talking but we can't hear you. >> director: i just like to warm up a little bit while i'm muted and then jump in. thank you so much diana for that report. i just wanted to flag because it's not lost on me and so rarely do we get this information where it's broken down with the demographics that are included both with gender and in race. i think that's a really big thing that was not happening in the past, not just with other records but in d.p.a. records as well and so we've added that and we've continued to drill down on the reflection of race in terms of the work that we're doing because there's so many racist barriers that we're trying to address and it's come up so often in the
7:56 pm
conversations and so i just wanted to make sure that we flagged the fact that these reports are coming in specifically and intentionally outlining race reflections for the work that's being done at d.p.a. that's it. >> president cohen: thank you for flagging that. anyone have any other questions? i don't see any. thank you for the presentation. let's keep moving on our agenda. okay. >> secretary: for members of the public that would like to make public comment regarding line item ten, please press star three now. and, president cohen, there's no public comment. line item eleven, presentation of the admin code section 90
7:57 pm
after this accidenta, california racial and identity act ripa and reports. discussion. >> president cohen: all right. our favorite topic. commissioner elias, would you like to start us off? >> vice president elias: i just want to say i'm very excited about this presentation. you know, i think on numerous occasions have thanked you personally and publicly for creating this report and creating this avenue for accountability and transparency in terms of the reporting in numbers. so i think that i will turn it over to the department so that they can present and then i'm sure all of us have lots of questions. >> president cohen: great thank you. >> police chief scott: thank you, president cohen and vice president elias. also, i want to announce that program manager jason cunningham is on the call as well and depending on, you know, what the questions are,
7:58 pm
there's questions about methodology or statistical methodology or anything like that, program director cunningham is apart of this work and the team that basically crunches the numbers and helps put these reports together. so he's available to answer any questions about the details about that if they arise. so let me start by -- i'm going to try to be as brief as i can on the actual presentation because i know as vice president elias says, there are always a lot of questions on this report and we're going to as the commission has suggested in prior reports, i'm going to not talk too much about self-explanatory slides, we're going to highlight some of the trends and then we will open it up for questions. as you all know, both reports 96a and the ripa report are pretty large and voluminous
7:59 pm
reports. we tried to boil this down to a manageable amount of size. so not everything in those reports are in these slides. we tried to highlight the information that has been of interest commission and public and highlight some of the trends in that information. so we're going to start with the ripa portion of the report. and, sergeant youngblood, what i'd like to do with some of these slides is put them up briefly so the public can see them because the state information from the ripa report and really just to give context of what this issue looks like statewide. so i won't do a whole lot of commenting on these slides. what needs to be highlighted or what we believe is of particular interest based on prior reports and discussions, i will highlight. and so we'll get through some of these slides just by putting them on the screen and giving everybody a second and moving on. so we'll start with slide one, sergeant youngblood.
8:00 pm
thank you. and we can go ahead and go to slide two. [please stand by]
8:01 pm
>> with covid, a lot of people weren't coming into the city. they weren't coming into the workplace. we believe that wasn't scientifically proven. it is just an insight. what you see is 62% decrease in the number of stops between 2019 and 2020. the report came out about a month ago and the data is from 2020. we are a year behind. that is the year of the reports. >> this is a state demographic.
8:02 pm
not a local demographic of how that works. and we will get into some of the local demographics. next slide. of note, on this particular slide, just for the public who may not be familiar with this, the comparison from the district -- different demographic categories, the control group, if you will, being compared to -- [ indiscernible ] -- what you see here are what the rates are as compared to the same rate for white. it is listed on here, but that is the control group. that is the basic comparison. as you can see, this is not good news by any stretch of the imagination. the state data that they are stopped to bring four times more often than whites. we looked at the same data in the report, but sfpd is similar.
8:03 pm
and in some cases, it will be much higher. these are things that i'm sure there will be lots of questions about and we will highlight and talk about some of the strategies towards the end. the rates for use of force are similar, statewide against blacks it is higher. sfpd numbers are definitely higher as well. i just wanted to get some context on what it looks like with the state numbers. one other thing of note before we move to the next slide is the rate of stops with no actions. meaning that the individual stopped and there was no particular action, no citation and the person was let go is to .3% higher on the state level then blacks and whites.
8:04 pm
san francisco is a little lower than that. and this is our data and comparing it to the state data. it came up to 1.37% higher. that is not in the state report. we just took the data and did the same comparison. next slide. disparities. for this slide, slide seven, it shows a couple of things. the top part of the slide indicates disparity rates when the public calls the police, and this is local information from sfpd taken from the state report. the second slide shows the disparity rate when police officer initiated activity is conducted. one thing of note that is important is if you look at, starting with the pacific
8:05 pm
islander, which is pretty different, it is a big disparity 4.3% give me one second. for this service calls, the pacific islander rate is 4.3%. and then when you look at the officer initiated, and this is information for our city, it is 5.05%. it is higher by a percentage point. we don't really know why it is. the factor is the volume. it is something we have to dig into more. that the rate on policy services is 7.53 when the public calls
8:06 pm
and for officer initiated stops is 5.83. it is for pacific islander stops. that is significant. neither one of them is very specific and we need to understand why. next slide, please. this slide goes after consent information. this just gives you all a picture of what this looks like across the state. you can look at it for yourself and see what it looks like. next slide. i will just pull this one up here and explain what it is.
8:07 pm
the green part of the chart is the traffic violation. creating a moving type of violation. and the chart is the consent services for nonmoving violations and nontraffic violations. as you can see, in the category of black persons who were stopped, it is 63% for traffic violations next slide. this is one slide we really wanted to flag. this is the search and discovery analysis.
8:08 pm
we put this in this graph. it is the information in the report. the graph makes it easier to digest what we are seeing here. this is compared to the search rate and discovery rate compared to white. and just a couple things of note, one of the things i want to note, and this is more of a trend analysis because it was important for us to look at, as much as we can do in 2016 when they published their assessment of the san francisco police department, this wasn't in their report. and although the analysis is somewhat different than what the
8:09 pm
state does, the trend was that the discovery rate for blacks was a lot lower than it was for white. and the discovery rate for latino, latin x, particularly men, was a lot lower than it was for white individuals. so what that means, and i will try to boil this down to a simple explanation, is it is a complicated thing, but the simplest explanation is the belief is when stops are made and an officer searches an individual, you expect to see at least similar -- or you want to see similar rates in different demographics. and when one demographic has a significantly lower find or discovery rate then another demographic, it could be an indication that those stops may be made for something other than
8:10 pm
the justified stop. that is the just of it in the simplest way can -- i can explain it. the discovery rate is 30%, and the discovery rate for black is 10% or latin x is 10%, which is much lower, the analysis infers or leaves us to dig deeper to see whether those stops for those demographics are legitimate because if you have a reasonable suspicion to actually conduct those searches, then one would expect that there would -- they would be more level. this calls for further inquiry, and that is one of the things that we look at carefully. as you can see, this is how we compare locally to the state overall and some of the trends and the asterisks are what the state determines to be
8:11 pm
significantly or statistically significant differences. so the numbers and the parts of the graph without asterisks, the state doesn't determine those differences to be statistically significant. i will give you a minute to digest that. i know there will be questions on the next one, but the san francisco department is doing much better than what the d.o.j. found when they did the same analysis. our gap is closing between the rates of search and discovery rates of white compared to african-american men, hispanic and compared to where we were in 2016. we do think some of our policies and training and some of the accountability on these procedures will contribute to that. that's what we believe. we don't have the scientific proof to prove that, but that's
8:12 pm
what we believe. next slide, please this is also state information. this is dealing with supervised searches. for instance, probation searches where the individual is some sort of under formal supervision. we need to take a look at it for the public's view and the commission's view. this is local information. one thing to note is there was demographic groups in the california discovery rates in the slide and it was lower than it is for whites. and then another thing to note, as i said, this has simplified the different discovery rates in supervised searches as compared to white. each demographic group is compared to white. this is state -- statewide data. next slide.
8:13 pm
this is state revision searches. the percentage of racial and ethnic groups is broken down. these are for stops with a supervisory only search reported. for instance, if the search is just pursuant to search conditions for the person being supervised and data shows the searches are due to known searches across most -- most demographic groups and the greater reasonable suspicion basically in the traffic violation. when you look across this graph, basically there are fewer searches due to known supervision by a percentage. i hope that makes sense to everybody. you look at, for instance, in a traffic violation, other reasons
8:14 pm
and known supervision, the searches tend to be less than the other group. so reasonable suspicion searches on traffic violation is higher on unsupervised searches and the traffic violation far exceeds, as far as the rate of searches the categories. that is just another topic that the commission has been very interested in. what role does traffic violation play in this disparity discussion. that is the essence this side is nonmoving. this is pretty standard. next slide, please her total of
8:15 pm
two recommendations of things that the state of california and everybody involved in this work believes that might help to change some of what we're talking about in disparities. seventy-two recommendations. i can't report on -- we believe that many of these recommendations are in line with what is discussed in the commission and some of what the department is doing with the d.o.j. and we haven't had time to fully look at it and see how those recommendations line up with the work that we are doing and how we can fit them in and work within all the other recommendations that we have to complete and sustain, but we do
8:16 pm
believe that there are good recommendations and we are supportive of incorporating them and we want to follow up with the commission with more details and which one we can do now as opposed to later. unless there's questions about the report, i would like to continue to go forward with a presentation on the quarterly activity in the report. >> let me check it. let me check in. i see commissioner carter with that question. >> the chief is right. >> think you. >> do you want to wait? >> okay. >> thank you, commissioners. we will go to the last report and the first slide is basically
8:17 pm
a summary of some of the things to keep in mind. and for the public to see this report, what we are looking at here is this is quarter three data in 2021. this is data from 2021. we don't have a full year of 2021 data. this is quarter three. i want to make that distinction and that note. okay. next slide.
8:18 pm
some of these i will go through quickly because i know there will be questions about these slides and i want to get to the questions so the commission can ask the question that they want to ask. i will just put this slide up here. of note is the slide here. and for the public, the reason why we use these rates is is that in line with the rules of the california department of justice has directed and that everybody contribute to the data that we use for these rates. they ask you not to try to verify what the officer believes. i know that was a point of contention that came out with a lot of people because, you know, it is not really information that you can verify. i want to note that it is something that i think that is important to note.
8:19 pm
that's why we use that data because that is the data that has directed the state all the departments to use. the highlight here is the graph on your right shows the rate of decline over there every course from 2018 and i will note that there have been declines across the board and there are many reasons that we were made for that including in some instances like in 2020. there were fewer stops. the rate of decline for african-americans or black individuals and that rate of decline is steeper than some of the categories. one trend that we are seeing that we really need to get a handle on is the rate of decline -- rate for hispanics, latin x is starting to trend up. that's something we need to pay attention to what is going on there and try and reverse that i
8:20 pm
didn't say this on the last slide, but i will say this. a couple things that i want to acknowledge and make sure the public understands. number 1, acknowledge that we have issues in the city with disparities. particularly with latin american and latin x and men in terms of the disparity rates. this is not new data and this is a question that one -- one of the major questions that we are here to try to figure out. i want to acknowledge that because i don't want to give any appearance that we are allying anything that might be positive as opposed to negative. i didn't say it on the last slide, but that is acknowledged. we know that the majority of our work is that way. that -- this slide is types of vehicles. it goes to the three vehicles of equipment violations and nonmoving violations. this is just the overall data.
8:21 pm
we believe that that is the reason. and we see it started creep back up. you can compare quarter one and quarter to and quarter free it is a significant decline heading into the first quarter and second quarter of 2020. we do believe that is part of what is going on there and it has impacted covid. the other trend downward more subtly there is a trend for equipment violation and a nonmoving violation. next slide, please i won't spend a whole lot of time, but this slide -- [ indiscernible ] -- this is the type of stock.
8:22 pm
black african-american is the top of the red one. and you see similar trends across those demographics with a significant drop leading into the second quarter of 2020 and then at levels often goes up and goes back down. it follows what we believe that covid and not as many people out on the streets is what we believe is the reason for that. it goes back to what i was saying earlier about the 62% decrease on the report of stops during this period in 2020. next slide, please. this is from a conversation, a commissioner -- correct me if
8:23 pm
i'm wrong, but you asked for this information. basically distracted driving. and just an insight, and i've talked to the commissioner, but but when this law was put on the books, there was discussion about whether or not this would have impact on rates of disparity. there's a lot of discussion on that. i'm not speaking for the commissioner. i'm glad he asked for this demographic because we do need to follow this because i want the discussion. i think it is something that over time the date it may indicate whether or not that is the case. this is what it looks like for the city and county of san francisco across the different demographics. you see a tremendous decrease in the second quarter of 2020. we believe that is the impact of covid. and then as it goes up, you see a spike.
8:24 pm
and the demographic we see the biggest threat is white. it all comes together in 2020 for all the different demographics next slide, please. again, i won't spend a whole lot of time. i think the slide was explanatory. black and african-american. there is disparity there and there is quite a bit of disparity in terms of the rate. the difference between the different groups and you see that the rate declines, same thing it goes down significantly. this one kind of bottoms out
8:25 pm
temporarily at the bottom, in the last part of 2020, the third quarter. it goes back up again and then it is different for different demographics over the last three quarters. african-american and black probably went down more significantly as far as you can see. it went up for white in the back quarter, although it dipped in the second quarter 2021, and then the hispanic latino has more of a significant drop leaning into the third quarter and then it goes up and declines in the last three quarters. again, this is just for your knowledge about what those trendlines look like. the rate of decline in terms of the searches per capita, a significant drop in the rate of decline over the period to look at in this particular graph in 2018 it has the most significant
8:26 pm
drop. there are other disparities that are of note. there is a wide disparity among blacks and african-americans. i want to know that is still a significant problem. i think it is a good trends that the rate of disparity is dropping quicker for that demographic because that is the biggest issue for the differences as you compare to white. next slide, please. the next slide is use of force. is really the same. you see a significant decrease over the period that we looked at. we were able to go back to 2016 when some -- on some of our data just because of the data that we were keeping within the forum that was consistent with what we are wearing now. this goes back to 2016. it shows a significant decrease
8:27 pm
across the board by quarter, which is the blue line. that is everybody. that demonstrates the trends that we see here. it is a significant decrease. i do believe that our policies have contributed to that. and the rate among black african-americans, out of all the different demographics as the most alarming because it is the biggest demographic, with a population if you compare to the per capita. it is a problem. again, the rate has declined over time. it is the steepest for the black african-american rate for use of force.
8:28 pm
i think that is some good news. we have problems as far as there being a disparity as compared to whites and other demographic groups. that's what i wanted to note on that. the next slide is the arrests. some similar trends. we do see a flatter line for black african-americans from quarter for 2018 until quarter three. you see more of a significant decrease among black african-americans beginning in quarter three of 2020, and that rate, as you can see, it exceeds the other rates. of note is more of an increase
8:29 pm
in the hispanic latin x population. this is something that we need to understand with the data and understand why we don't have all those answers for you tonight, but it is something we continue to look into. these are the trends. as far as white, the up and down from the last quarter of 2018 to the third quarter, second quarter of 2020, then you see more of a significant dip in the supply and it goes up from quarter to and quarter three of 2021. those are the trends. the trendline is the same as the previous several slides where the rate of decrease with black african-americans exceeds the rate of decrease for all other demographics. then you start to see pretty flat lines and you are starting to see an increase, as i noted.
8:30 pm
next slide, please. this slide is the disparity table. this is local information based on what we are required to report on. this one is graphs. it is about to be absorbed. we lit the police commission take a look at that for those people who hadn't already looked at that. i will give you all a second to process this. a couple of significant trends on this. this is the yearly average going back to 2018. you can see again the alarming disparities between black african-americans versus white and when you compare black versus hispanics, it is less of
8:31 pm
a difference. and when you compare hispanics versus white, it is even less of a difference. that is definitely what the trends show in all three graphs. it shows what you are looking at in each graph. the trend is black african-americans with disparity rates and the other demographics as compared to the white population. that is the highlight and the thing that we spend the most time on in terms of the department and getting solutions and answers. that is the last slide. i just wanted to give the framework of what we are doing in terms of solutions. i can talk about part of this. i will sum up how this all comes together. you heard me and others who made the presentation say before the policy is really important to
8:32 pm
turning some of these disparities around. and i think the department and through the commission tt leadership and commission have made some really important decisions and policy decisions that some, quite frankly, i have said to be model policies. use of force is one of them. hour detention policy, the california d.o.j. pointed out that we were the only department that really explained biased by proxy and gave them explanation on how to handle it. i think we are making some progress. those things over time will help to bring these things down. the policies are important. however,, policies are one part of it. the policies have to be implemented. they have to be properly implemented with training, with accountability and the department n.d.p. and the commission plays a role in that
8:33 pm
and these things have to work together. training, i want to spend a little time on training because i want to give you all a picture of the vision that we have of how training plays into this. this is being done at multiple levels. i will talk about the control officer and the patrol supervisors. we embed a lot of the training we believe that will help train -- change this narrative into different blocks of training. managing bias is its own training and in this past year and a half since 2020 we have also implemented online file-based training, which is ongoing training that has a two-year cycle with refresher training along the way. very short vignette we believe it will be significant in keeping it in the forefront.
8:34 pm
we have -- we are a high 90% on the shorter end of training. progress is being made on that as well. training plays a big part in this. as the commission knows, i want to share with the public for those who do not follow commission meetings, we are committed as an organization and department to give the officers time to train. that is really important because traditionally when we give out general orders and policies, we do it in line up. officers have to sign for it.
8:35 pm
we have never really scheduled time for officers on duty to sit down and be sometimes what are pretty extensive dgo's. so what we're trying to work into our training schedule and our deployment rhythm is time for officers to train and absorb all the change coming their way. and there is a lot of change in the situation. you have been a part of it. they need time to train. i don't want to be long-winded on that, but i need to emphasize how important that is. we have listened to the people who have to do this work and follow these policies, and what this department hears over and over again is we need time to train and we need to be trained so we can follow these orders. we can't do what we did early in my career where you did this on your own time when you had time and you did it, you know, when you had a break.
8:36 pm
we can't rely on that type of system. what we have done is we have incorporated training into our scheduling. we have what we call heavy days, and we started doing this so we can manage the covid officers being exposed and getting sick. what we did is we started giving officers time to train during the heavy ties. designated time to train. it is very helpful. the officers seem to appreciate it. that is embedded in part of the vision and the strategy. we have to give them time to train. i will just end my points with this. a lot of time and effort went into the recent changes that were adopted by the commission. as you all might recall, i asked the commission for 90 days for the department to incorporate and train up on this.
8:37 pm
the board is effective. the commission granted that. it may sound like a small thing for people who may not be as familiar with this, that is a big deal for the officers. i want to thank the commission for allowing and granting us and understanding how important this is. those are the types of measures we have to incorporate. if we don't train our officers for the policies, what we ultimately want is the policies to be followed and understood and good outcomes and that speaks directly to training. i will go forward. accountability and organizational accountability is important. this is a topic that i believe is overlooked sometimes. i know a lot of the focus is on individual officers. but when it comes to just when it comes to disparities and bias. that should be focused on individual officers. but we have reached out academic partners. there is documented research out there.
8:38 pm
what is our strategy. when we talk about how we are addressing whatever the issue of the day is, drug sales in the tenderloin, violent crime, shooting, property crime, what is the department, the commanding officers telling our officers to do? what instructions are we giving them and are we really looking at, like we should be, the impacts on equity, the impacts on demographics? even if it is unintended, we need to pay attention to that. in a perfect world, our strategies would be race neutral, ethnicity neutral based on behavior.
8:39 pm
we have to really look at and take more of an organizational accountability with what we are doing and what we are telling officers to do. we need to understand the impact of what we are doing. i want to flag that because that is something we haven't spent a whole lot of time talking about. it is worthy of people understanding what that dynamic means. i varty talked about that. one thing i want to report on before i get to the last bullet point, i know there might be a lot of discussion on the dashboard, that we are part of the recommendations. as you recall, as you might recall, that was a group of recommendations that the california d.o.j. came back with
8:40 pm
us -- came back 12 for feedback. we are down the road on a lot of the development of the dashboard. we have already, just recently put a person in charge of -- running the unit and creating all the systems that would do this work. that is one of the things they wanted to see us do, which we were committed to doing. now we have to finish staffing the unit with the officers and correctional staff that we are making progress to more -- towards true implementation of that dashboard. more to fall on that. i will keep the commission apprised of how that is looking so we can be held accountable. that is one of the several recommendations out of the 26th that remained to be implemented. it is a work in progress. i'm going off the top of my head, but there are five or six recommendations that are tied specifically into that. will keep the commission
8:41 pm
apprised and keep the public apprised. that is a big part of this work. we need to look at trends organizationally and individually to see what we have and why they are occurring and what actions or measures need to be made. the last thing i want to talk about briefly as community partnerships. we have a pretty extensive community engagement and policing plan. it was passed by the commission. there's a lot of good feedback. we want to be held accountable to that policy because that is the architecture of how we will approach the community policing part of it is tracking and
8:42 pm
accountability on engagement on what that needs to look like. the highlight of the last bullet point is that strategic plan and that dgo that the commission passed is really the infrastructure of all of our community engagement and community partnerships. a lot of thought went into it and a lot of work went into it. that will help tie it together to the other piece of this framework so we can get the solutions. i have a lot more to say but i promised i would be as brief as i can. >> thank you. we have several questions. at -- first i am going to talk with commissioner max carter.
8:43 pm
>> thank you. as i have mentioned in prior commission meetings, i have been working for the department for a while now to get staff data this is an issue that i have been very focused on. i think our goal here is to figure -- figure out, you know, you have mash -- massive racial disparities in our staff. our goal is to figure out what portion of this is caused by race neutral policies that are legitimate and what parts are caused by violence. i want to thank the department for providing additional data that was requested and additional data analysis.
8:44 pm
a lot of the questions i have today are valid. that dated that the department provided that weren't necessarily covered in the report or the presentation. if sergeant youngblood could help me out and just put on the screen the slides that i sent, i think some of my questions would just be easier if there are visual aids. unlike the d.p.a. reports, this won't win any design awards. i put this together myself. brace yourself. it is really ugly. i think it will be better than nothing. we could just go to the first slide okay, chief, you covered this in your presentation, but this is just different types of traffic stops going back from 2019 to the present. and you see the big drop-off.
8:45 pm
and as you mentioned, this is pandemic covid driven. is it fair to say that post- pandemic we will see stop numbers start to look more like they did in 2019 in the years prior? >> i think it is a fair assumption. i am not 100% confident that you will see the level of thoughts. and for a couple of different reasons. we are seeing the level slowly creep back up. in other words, the rate of drop and the rate of increase our hard to take leading up to the pandemic and after. our deployment is lower than it was prepandemic and i think i will just talk about -- even though that is a national trend, i will talk about it as a local
8:46 pm
issue. it is a local issue. if we continue to see our staffing go down, i think that will definitely we would do the best we can to take the data and is much as we can, as much as we can do this, make the comparisons so the commission and the public can see what events, if any impact it has. there has been a decrease in staffing. >> understood. that is helpful. sergeant youngblood, can you go to the next slide? >> all right, this is traffic stops, different types of traffic stops, equipment violations, moving violations and nonmoving violations.
8:47 pm
each broken down by race. this is showing the stops per 10,000 residents. those really tall bars that you see on the screen, that is representing stops with black people. for example,, black people are stopping 10.3 times the rates that white people are stopping for equipment violations. 2.84 moving, and 5.9, almost six% for nonmoving violations. so members of the public, moving violations tend to be things that pose a bona fide risk to public safety like drag racing. and the equipment violations tend to be the more low-level offences like broken tail light. i just want to ask you off the
8:48 pm
top, in your view, why do you think black people are being stopped at such a higher rate? >> the moving violations, and i don't have an answer for this? i will give you some anecdotal information. the first thing is that we cannot explain the differences in why the gaps are so wide. and a matter how you slice the data, the disparities are there. let me say that first and foremost. what we need to do and what we need to dig into and present to the public and the commission, and it will take some work, and we are willing to do it, is where those thoughts occurred, we need to dig into what happened on the stops in terms of -- and it is hard to get
8:49 pm
unless there is an incident report connected to it. the traffic stop will just have the information about the traffic stop. we don't know if it is connected to a policing direction given by supervisors. we are having pedestrians hit in a certain area, we need some enforcement in that area. because this on the horizon. we need to set up systems where we can track what direction is being given. we need to have enforcement in that area.
8:50 pm
ideally what we would be able to do is track whether that enforcement is adding to these disparities. and as you pointed out, is it race neutral policy or is there something else at play here. those are the types of things that would be very helpful to answer that question that we don't have the answers to because we have never tracked data in that matter and we need to start to. it will take putting systems in place to do it. >> okay, it sounds like you are doing it and saying that -- i will just act specifically not just about disparities overall, but the disparities are so much more pronounced in the equipment violations versus moving violations. wouldn't you agree that that is the academic literature a telltale sign of pretextual
8:51 pm
stops happening? and what i mean, under the constitution for police officer to pull over a car, it means reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. and precheck stop is when an officer had some suspicion that someone is up to no good and is committing a crime and maybe just looks suspicious, but it doesn't rise to the level of reasonable suspicion so they can't pull them over. instead what they do, they are suspended over low-level traffic offences. they didn't have a reasonable suspicion. so when we see equipment and racial disparities off the charts, academics say, back to
8:52 pm
red flag for precheck stops. do you agree with that. >> that definitely needs to be looked at. it could be a red flag. you need more data. equipment violations, in some cases, perfectly appropriate and proper. you are driving at night and you don't have headlights because -- >> i don't mean to cut you off. nobody is disagreeing about that. we are talking about racial disparities in equipment violations. do you think black people are committing equipment violations over 10 times the rate of black people? if not, there something else driving the disparity and what the literature says is when you
8:53 pm
see the disparity so focused and so heavy on equipment violations, it is not conclusive. >> i agree with that. take 30 seconds to answer with this piece of the data that is needed. the raw data -- pretext -- precheck stops, one had to assume there something else going on like a search. he stopped the person because you're speculating they maybe connected to a crime and you don't have any reasonable suspicion to do that. let's stop that person for the fuzzy dice. the second part of the data that we nailed at is whether or not the officer actually did a search. so that's why i say, you know, i agree with that assessment. i think it is very, very real.
8:54 pm
it is truly a red flag. we also need to know whether a search was done. if the officer just cited the person forever the equipment violation was, it is hard to say, and didn't do any surgeon didn't ask any investigative questions and didn't do any of that, i am citing you, and they are on their way. that's why i say you really have to have more data to really say that that analogy is true. without knowing why there was a search then it is hard to say if there was a pretext. >> no one is going to disagree that we could use more data. the academics generally have this right about the stops. >> we do. >> more data would always be of use. could we go to the next slide, please.
8:55 pm
>> can we go to the next slide? >> so this slide relates to the last slide. i just took out three of the most common equipment violations here to just show you what this really means. when we say black people are being singled out for violations, the failure to display both licence plates is apparently something that over 4,000 people a year in san francisco got pulled over for, having only one license plate on your car. broken tail lights, expired registration, i will just pick out more. failure to display both licence plates. white people are stop at a rate of 26 per 10,000 residents for this. black people are stop at a rate of 420 per 10,000 residents for this offences.
8:56 pm
black people are over 16 times more likely to be stopped. another way to think about it is a white person has about a one and 400 chance of being stopped. black person has about one in 25. it is pretty high. if you are black, if you are someone who you know probably got stopped for this, whereas if you are white, you probably go through your life never getting stopped for this. when you look at to this, chief, why do you think just focusing on this one offences, why do you think the disparity is so high here? >> i can't answer. i don't know. i will say is i think it goes back to the same thing that you just said. i think it is a red flag that these could be the reason for this. we don't know. again, when i say more data would be helpful to confirm theories, this is just my
8:57 pm
analysis. we have been involved in this work for five years. there's a lot of theories out there and a lot of conclusions drawn. we don't have the data to confirm it. i am not trying to say that that's not an indicator, because there's a lot it could be and i agree with you on that. if we are going to say it is a check stop and not knowing whether research is conducted, it may be something else. it maybe straight by us and not connected to the check stop. we need to dig into the patterns of the officers were the people. we have to dig into what that something else might be. this whole body of work is really complex and difficult, but what we aim to do is answer some of these questions that we
8:58 pm
keep getting asked and you keep getting asked, and the commission with some certainty so we know what we have. we can't do that without real data. that's what i'm saying. >> i think we have real data. i've spent the last month going through it with special thanks to your department for bringing it to me. i think we have great data. i agree with you, we will never know 100% on this, but that's the nature of suit took -- statistical analysis. by definition it will never be able to give you a result to 100%. it can just show you how me standard deviations you are from the mean and how likely it is that this is based on bias versus not. i don't think that the pursuit of 100% result is necessarily attainable here. we have to use the data that we've got, which i think is pretty solid. i just want to, on this one last question on this, we can at
8:59 pm
least say, it would be absolutely shocking if black people were just 16 times more likely to have only one license plate on their car. you don't think that is an explanation for it? >> absolutely not. i don't. i just want to be very clear. i'm not saying we have to have 100% data. we have to have more data. i would like to, at least be able to validate some of these theories. that is all i'm saying. i just want to say this too. i said it on the record and i will say it again. i believe we have to have some restrictions on check stops. we are trying to be very thoughtful about what that means and what that looks like so we don't have unintended consequences for those restrictions. we have reached out to departments all over the country and we have assembled data and research looking at who was doing this and who is doing
9:00 pm
this. i think there is a department in southern california that put things out today that we just got our hands on. we are working and hearing the feedback. we are tracking the feedback. i want to make sure i put that on the record. i don't think there is any agreement there with me and the department. [please standby for captioner switch]
9:01 pm
black drivers were the most likely to get issued an arrest.
9:02 pm
that's the first thing. it's not about propensity to violate our traffic was specific enforcement and one thing i've heard you folks bring up and sometimes the bayview gets used as an example of this and you put more officers in the hopes of pushing down the crime rates. so i took a look at bayview and i think there's at least three reasons why bayview cannot be driving this. the first is just the simplest reasons that accounts for less than 5% of traffic stops. so in 2019 at least: the second is if things were done in a race mutual way, what you
9:03 pm
would see is everybody getting stopped regardless of race. we just got more officers in the bayview so everyone is just getting stopped more, but that's not the case. i just saw the statistics to account for specific neighborhood demographics of the bayview which have a so equipment violations in the bayview for 10,000 residents, again, adjusting for the specific demo graphics in the bayview, black people are 6.6 times more likely to get stopped for equipment violation. 3.1x nonmoving. so that's just another indication that's not a good explanation and, finally, this enforcement surge rationale wouldn't account for the gap that we've discussed between
9:04 pm
equipment violations. having just that gap there and having racial disparities. so i'm just wondering, given that so many of the race neutral explanations don't seem to be supported by the data, is there anything else? is there any other rationale, you did a good job in the presentation, but is there something that we're missing in terms of what are some other race neutral reasons that we've been seeing in sympathize disparities? chief, i think you might be commuted. >> police chief scott: i'm sorry, commissioner. i was just wanting to clarify, are you referring to the center for policing equity? or is another entity in that
9:05 pm
report? >> commissioner: yeah. exactly. you guys cite it in almost every -- >> police chief scott: yeah. what i believe i said is -- i'm not saying that that's the reason. you know, weave been working with c.p.a. and others and we're in agreement that even when you account for crime and deployment and whatever, it still doesn't explain what your data shows which is basically similar to what the data is. it doesn't explain that and i think your question at the end of that some of the other explanations. the first one is we have to say and try to determine whether this is driven by bias. you know, i think that's the obvious one and i'm not trying
9:06 pm
to be, but i think that's the one that we're trying to get our arms wrapped around and find ways to either prove that or even if we can't prove it 100% we agree that we can really then address the issue and that's not an easy thing to do because, you know, there's a lot of assumptions it's got to be bias. how do you explain it? i can't answer that. but sitting in this position, i also can't say that it is that. i think there's a lot of work to be done to figure out ways to drill down on whether that's driving that. whether that's the assumption that a lot of people are making here and it's in everybody's minds. is it straight bias. so i really can't explain it. i just want to be clear. i'm not saying, you know, crime
9:07 pm
surges or traffic surges. i think we need to understand how that plays into it. i really do. i think that will be helpful because part of what we're trying to do is validate what we can validate and if that's not the reason, move on to the next thing so we can really drill down on really what the big question is, is this bias? is this driven by bias, which is a really difficult thing to prove. so i do think -- i hope we're in agreement on that. commissioner, if i had the explanation, i think we would be giving you a different story. >> president cohen: can i jump in here for a second because i'm seeing a little bit of a pattern and that pattern is that the data and the slides are impressive and incredibly informative and speak to the issue and i think you've captured my frustration i would
9:08 pm
say the commission's frustration, but the chief doesn't have answers. doesn't have a data analyst. doesn't have, you know, i don't -- i just want to be mindful of the time. we still have to go in closed session and d.g.o.3.01 to deal with. so we need to kind of move this along. >> commissioner: i understand. i have one more slide i want to cover and then i appreciate my colleagues indulging my questions. okay. so we talked about staff in just one slide on searches. i just wanted to cover consent searches. i actually don't have the search in front of me. i wanted to cover that. so again, for consent searches, we see massive racial
9:09 pm
disparities. black people in 2019 were 8.2 times likely to be subjected to consent searches and we talked about in your presentation, chief, yield rates sounds like improved from years past for black people are still substantially lower than they are for white people. 27% versus 36%. i just want to ask, you would agree that this dynamic of having much higher rates of search, but much lower yield rates is again a tell tell sign. >> police chief scott: i would agree that that would definitely be an indication. so consent searches. >> commissioner: great. >> police chief scott: and the officer says, "can i search you" and there's no reasonable suspicion or facts that it
9:10 pm
gives the officer the legal authority so it's the ask, can i search you. that is a sign that could be bias related. why are we asking a certain group of folks potentially that question and finding less stuff, what's driving that and so so there's no disagreement there. >> commissioner: it sounds like we agree on a lot their yield rates are much lower. none of the prominently tauted racially explanations are supported by data. would you agree all of these factors identify and all point in the same direction and
9:11 pm
strongly suggest that racial bias find a substantial rule and disparity we're seeing. >> police chief scott: i agree with that. that's a valid theory. i think it's a theory that we really need to understand, but for me to say that that is it without all the things that i've pointed out, i can't go that far. i would agree that we might be in the right direction in terms of what's driving this, but, again, if we're going to say consent searches and driving this issue without looking at other factors, you know, it would be good to have some definitive answers to really go to that degree of conclusion in our statement in my opinion. i can agree that we're going maybe in the right direction. i can agree this is something that's a red flag, by i can't
9:12 pm
agree to saying we've got the answer. >> commissioner: no one's saying you've got the answers. it seems like everything's pointing in the same direction. i heard you say, chief that you have thought you had made some level, made some comment that you're interested in looking at actual stops. what is your view, what is the department's view on these pretext stops? where is the line of officers told if anything as related to pretext stops in the field? >> police chief scott: right now, we don't have a policy. >> what's your view on the stops? is the pretext stops legitimate? they're constitutional. are they legitimate law enforcement techniques? are they not legitimate? what's your view on it? >> police chief scott: here's
9:13 pm
what i believe. i believe there needs to be restrictions and guardrails because i do believe that they play into this. i do believe that there are legitimate pretextural stops that are necessary and need to be done. i think that's a very much narrower scope. what we're really shooting for is to create a policy with all the people giving us input and we actually do have just based on our discussions for over a year on this, we do have a lot of recommendations on paper on this. i know commissioner hamasaki has connected me to some people that want to be part of the work groups.
9:14 pm
i believe there's room to have a policy that's sensible. i don't believe that an outright ban on pretext stops is what should be done at this point. i don't believe that because i can cite some examples of where pretext stops are legitimate in terms of what led up to the reason that the pretext stop was done. but i do believe there should be restrictions. that's what we're working towards. a lot of work has gone into the input onto paper so when we reach out to work groups we're tracking a lot of the recommendations and i think there's a lot of work that could impact this. >> commissioner: thanks, chief. this will be my last comment. it sounds like you think there should be some limitations and
9:15 pm
we currently have no limitations on pretext stops. so it sounds like we agree there needs to be revision policy. i'll just say that these numbers have been evident in the data for a long time and it's long past due that we curtail what i think is a devious practice of pretext stops and i think that it needs to be pursuant to our new -- what will be our new impasse d.g.o.3.01. i think this needs to be commission led d.g.o.. we've stareded at these numbers for a much shorter time and i think this is something the commission needs to take the lead on and an act of policy that reflects our values around bias-free policing and i hope the department can be a partner in this and i'll stop there and
9:16 pm
i know i'm taking up a lot of time. >> police chief scott: absolutely. and police, commissioners, just know, you don't have to hope the department is and should be a partner in this and we are definitely wanting to be apart of this and we understand the commission's role and if it's commission-led, that's fine. we've been working on this and at some point, i can show you all the work because it's not just the policy, there's a whole network of bringing this together with all the other work that we're trying to do to inform these policies. and that's the part that really, you know, i thoep that and you i and the commission can talk about as whoever the commission appointed lead would be on this so you can actually have a good understanding of everything that has been done leading up to this pending policy change. i think that's important for you and the commission and also we're working with to know.
9:17 pm
>> president cohen: all right. let me jump in here. we need to keep moving. we're going to hear from commissioner elias and then we need to take a break, staff collecting all this data, not data, but making the notes give them an opportunity to relieve themselves. so, commissioner elias. >> vice president elias: thank you, president cohen. i'll be brief because i think my fellow commissioner did an outstanding job of outlining the issues. with all do respect, i want to put some perspective on the history. in 2016, the ripa and the 96a legislation was passed by president cohen. since that time, the repore, we've had the numbers that starting coming to us in 2016. in 2018 shortly after i joined the commission, i began asking questions about these racial disparities and the numbers and how upsetting they were. it is now 2022.
9:18 pm
my question is, chief, how much more data do we need? we have data and a lot of the data that the department has isn't even reported to the public. the organizational accountability that you gave about specific areas for specific concerns, that was posed to us in the investigative d.g.o. group back in 2019. so we're aware of the typos. we're aware of this data since 2016 when we began tracking it. so at what point do we start doing what you say which is digging in? at what point do we start saying, okay, we already have the data set, what are we going to do about it? >> police chief scott: i think they're doing that now, we're digging in now. and i do understand that when i
9:19 pm
say we need data, you cited reports and history. i think it's important to site the history that the academic partners that we've invited to help us do this have also said we need better data, more precise data. it's not just us saying this. so the type of data that we need is the type of data where we can answer these questions so we're not just coming in here saying, oh, we need this data. we need to have the data so we can answer the questions like how many of our equipment violation stops actually led to searches. so we can make a determination of whether this is a pretext stop and not assume it might be and assume that it's bias. i think those are real concerns and i think those will help us get there and we are digging in on these things. the bias dash board is apart of digging in on these things. so i do think -- not think -- there is work being done and i
9:20 pm
really do believe because i know we don't have all night to talk about these. whatever the commission lead on this policy is what i recommend is that commissioner spend some time with us so that commissioner has a true understanding of what i'm talking about and the challenges of not having specific data to address this specific questions that you're answering. >> and also in all fairness, i think that commissioner carter-oberstone did an excellent job within a month's time he was able to extract this data. and you the department has been looking at it for four or five years. the academics and their reports do indicate that there is data, but we have data to at least begin the process of it. so i guess i'm just not quite
9:21 pm
sure why we would delay this any further. and with respect to the pretext, that's what he's talking about, but also what about the searches and the search issue. you and i had had lengthy conversations about the searches and i think you even raised it about the searches and yield rates which is the only reason officers are allowed to search people is if they have contraband and what we're finding is that these searches are happening at an alarming rate but the contraband is not found so why are we searching these people? and you talk about organizational accountability, but you don't talk about organizational bias and because as a discipline officer in these types of hearings, there's a lot of cases that we see and it's like, okay, you say that's not bias, but then you provide all these other reasons and excuses, but sometimes it is what it is. it's like, sometimes you can't really articulate what bias is
9:22 pm
but as someone who is a person of color, you know what it is. you know what it feels like. i can't tell you or maybe i can't articulate it all the time, but we know what it is. so i think that there has to be in conjunction with your statement of organizational accountability, there has to be some analysis or some reflection upon the organizational bias that's happening especially when we see these disciplinary cases that come before us and what you're holding officers accountable to. the other thing that i will just speak very briefly about it is when the ripa report, i noticed that you were saying, oh, these positive things in terms of the declines in searchs and stops, but i really think we need to put it into perspective and not celebrate too soon because based on the 2020 data, the numbers went down significantly, but i think as you may have glossed over,
9:23 pm
the fact is that we were in a pandemic and san francisco which was a primary city and county that took a proactive measures to shut down unlike other counties throughout the state where we had a curfew, we had a shutdown and we had criminal enforcement where police officers were citing and arresting people for violating these measures that were put into place to keep people at home. so, you know, look at this data and i don't think that it warrants celebration in terms of the decline in numbers. so the other thing that i am going to ask is that perhaps we can agendize a followup to this issue and answers to commissioner carter-oberstone's questions that you didn't have today or possibly giving more solutions. the other thing i would note is that in the ripa report you indicate that there are 73 recommendations and i would like to know which of the 73, not today in the future which
9:24 pm
ones are -- is the department adopting because one of the recommendations on consent searches is that they thought that there's no longer is consent searches. so it would be interesting to know what the department's view on that is as well as supervision stops and searches. i know d.p.a. has looked into and did a lot of research on these stops for people that are on parol and so that would address that recommendation as well. and one of the recommendations that i think we just did in passing 301 is to provide a process for civilian input and policy development. so, again, i'd really like to hear what the department plans in terms of adopting some of the 73 recommendations because, again, ripa who relies on some of the similar data you have and was created in 2016 at the same time has actual recommendations and isn't relying on the premise that we
9:25 pm
need more data. thank you for your time and consideration. >> police chief scott: yes. thank you, commissioner. i just want to make sure i heard you correctly in terms of the pandemic. you said that i glossed over the impact of the pandemic? is that correct? did i hear that correctly. >> vice president elias: now. the decline of 54 in 2019, there were 101,000 and in 2020 it increased to 60%. and so i think that while we want to say maybe it's the policy, it's really in large part to the pandemic. and the other question you just reminded me. is you talk about training and giving officers time to train,
9:26 pm
but here's the problem or the concern i have and you talk about all these new trainings that officers are going to have and you're going to give them time to train, but we haven't been able to get through the training that was implemented years ago. like the 40-hour c.i.p. training that was implemented before 2016. i'm not sure. the critically training to c.m.t.r. training that received national awards, we haven't even gotten through a quarter of the force in terms of training them on that. so you're saying giving them more training, but we haven't gotten through some of the fundamental training that officers need. >> police chief scott: yes, commissioner. i want to go back and clarify what i said because i pointed out that that 62% decrease was directly related to the pandemic is what i said and also, there was about four or
9:27 pm
five other sides where that trend and i said it on both sides too. so i just want to make sure we're on the same page of what i actually said. >> vice president elias: my apologies. it must have been slide four. so that's fine. >> police chief scott: exactly. so i hear you on all the questions. i would like to address your comments and i know we're running short on time, but the training and how this fits together with deployment, i think it would be a good thing to discuss how the training and the actual deployment of staff and details and assignments of staff come together because the issue that when we do have that discussion that you hear me talk about is how the train sergeant really the derivative of are we able to provide the
9:28 pm
basic services. are we able to staff regular cars? and so where i'm going with this and i really would like to talk in detail. i start my report off every commission meeting with crime. i don't get into how deployment impacts that crime. i did based on the commissioner carter-oberstone. i briefly go into how staffing has a correlation. staffing to address whatever it is also has a correlation and training has an impact on our ability to staff patrol officers, investigators, sergeants, so we have to try to balance all of this and the short is we can't do it all at one time. we have a long term schedule with c.i.t.. that means that officer's out of the field for a week.
9:29 pm
and so i think it would be very fair and informative for the commission and the public to have a discussion about how training and deployment and staffing being that we're a 500+ officers short of what the consultant has said we should be and how that plays together. >> vice president elias: i agree, chief. i'm concerned because we can't get through the basics and you're adding on more training to address these issues. if we can't get through the basics, how are we supposed to get through the basics. >> president cohen: i'm going to have to interject here. before we need to move on, i need to address ms. rosenstein's comments. the floor is yours, ms. rosenstein. >> thank you so much. i'll be very brief and commissioner carter-oberstone. >> president cohen: something's wrong with your
9:30 pm
mic. >> can you hear me now? >> president cohen: yes. >> i was just saying thank you, i'll be brief and if commissioner carter-oberstone ever gives a training on cross-examination i'm there. so some of the questions that he's posed hit the crux of the problem and i think some of the solutions are definitely in the ripa executive report. d.p.a. wholeheartedly endorsed the recommendations made by the ripa board in their 2022 best practices report. we encourage the public and all of the commissioners to read that report and consider the recommendations that are met that have been enumerated in that report. i just want to point out that d.p.a. has been in discussions and has been creating policy in conjunction with sfpd and other agencies to ask sfpd to

39 Views

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on