In life, Victor Nguyen was unique, an individual, one-of-a-kind. In death, however, he was hardly atypical. And he became a statistic.
On May 23 of last year, Nguyen was an innocent bystander — a term that’s never used when something good happens. He was waiting for a bus in front of the Potrero Center mall in the late morning, when a purloined SFMTA paint truck being pursued by San Francisco law-enforcement officers jumped the curb and ran him down.
Nguyen was 58.
One month later, a San Francisco Police Department cruiser involved in a high-speed chase clipped a motorcycle, narrowly missed a child and barreled through the former Lucca delicatessen site. By the grace of God, nobody was seriously injured.
In light of a man being killed and half a dozen others injured, San Francisco’s Police Commission stated in June that it would “take a hard look” at the city’s police-pursuit policy, which hasn’t been modified since Chief Greg Suhr and a prior iteration of the Police Commission hammered it out in 2013.
But Mayor London Breed had plans of her own. In October, she claimed that the Police Commission — which, again, last modified police pursuit policy a decade ago — had “gone way too far.” She proposed that we, the voters, decide on departmental policy regarding chasing suspected criminals. And this proposed policy would be broader: Rather than essentially being limited to pursuing alleged violent felons, SFPD officers would, if Breed’s Proposition E passes on Tuesday, be empowered to chase suspects in nonviolent felonies and “violent misdemeanors.”
“Violent misdemeanors,” by the way, are not defined under the state penal code. Both prosecutors and police officers have told me they don’t know what this means.
But they can certainly make inferences. Cops I’ve spoken with figured this was a term of art to encompass retail thieves and auto break-in specialists of the sort who’ve been a San Francisco scourge going back decades. “This would allow WAY more suspects to be pursued,” says one.
And that’s a double-edged sword. More than four in 10 of the pursuits initiated by San Francisco police result in a collision. And this staggering rate comes as no surprise to the cops who do the pursuing.
“Pursuits end in two ways; suspects rarely have a change of heart and just pull over,” says one. Rather, “1. The suspect crashes and probably foot bails or, 2. The suspect has his tires spiked and eventually stops — and then probably foot bails.”
This week, a pair of deeply researched stories regarding police pursuits appeared in San Francisco publications. The Chronicle published a yearlong analysis of pursuits nationwide, which found that in the six years ending in 2022, at least 3,336 people were killed in police pursuits — which were often triggered by minor crimes or non-crimes. At least 551 of the people killed were bystanders, like Nguyen.
The San Francisco Standard published a study of California police chases. It found that pursuits initiated by the San Francisco Police Department result in a collision 41 percent of the time — compared to a 22 percent statewide average. San Francisco officers catch the suspect they’re pursuing only 39 percent of the time — compared to a 56 percent statewide average.
It is not the job of Mission Local to tell you how to vote on Proposition E, but it is within our purview to elucidate the issues you’ll be voting on, and explain how and why things get on the ballot. Enabling a broader swath of suspected crimes to trigger police chases intuitively figures to increase the number of police chases undertaken in San Francisco. And, considering the statistics we have access to — and common sense — that would lead to more risk. More risk for suspected criminals, more risk for police officers and more risk for passengers and innocent bystanders. Like Victor Nguyen.
The police are well aware of this. The police don’t need to be reminded that driving at high speeds through San Francisco’s crowded streets — and pursuing people who are not bound by ethical obligations to drive as safely as possible and who may well be armed — is dangerous. The officers I have spoken with get this. They know the risks. They’re frustrated at watching law-breakers drive off and simply radioing it in. Professional break-in crews wear gloves and masks, and are often driving stolen cars with stolen plates. They are often packing heat, and if there’s a way to track them down beyond nabbing them in the act or pursuing them, it almost always eludes the SFPD; the department’s clearance rate for auto break-ins rarely cracks 2 percent.
“If we get hurt while preventing future people from being victimized, it’s a tradeoff I’m willing to make,” says a veteran cop. He’s voting yes on Proposition E.
He’s okay with the risk. This, he says, is part of his job.
But it’s not yours. What about the increased risk for the general public? The veteran officer went on to make a point that I think is pretty profound — and is something every voter could do well to consider.
“I don’t see the police commission, in a liberal city like San Francisco, being open to allowing more dangerous activities — which I understand,” he said. “So if we’re going to loosen a pursuit policy, something that will increase risk to the public at large, maybe the citizens should get a vote and express the amount of risk they’re willing to accept — for themselves and for their cops.”
The officer notes that residents of affluent areas like the Marina, Alamo Square, Pacific Heights or North Beach — “where a lot of our ‘crimes of opportunity’ are occurring” — may be the ones to disproportionately experience more high-speed police chases.
Voters, the cop concludes, should understand that Proposition E “likely will put more people in danger. If we are willing to accept that in order to arrest people, okay, fine. If we aren’t okay with that, that’s fine, too. I will work under whatever parameters the public sets.”
He is awaiting your orders; Election Day is March 5. Mission Local cannot tell you how to think nor how to vote. It can only ask you to think. And then vote.
Or will criminals continue to know they have a green light on getting away.
It should be mandatory that police do chase criminals that are running/car chase and all, citizens have to be careful of there surroundings. The police use this as an excuse not to chase or do there duties. The criminals know that the police are sluggish and they capitalize on that. If they football out,football right after them. If someone gets hurt or killed in the chase even more reason to catch them and charge them with felony assault or murder, we won’t see that/those criminal(s) again in our lifetime.
Adam,
The Pursuit Policy will not change. I watch every minute of the Police Commission like it’s a Soap Opera (which it is and I have Max Carter Oberstone as Ali and Chief Scott as Liston) …
Max asked the Chief how the Policy here compared with LA where they have lots of fast cars and helicopters …
The Chief said SF was about average compared to LA and other jurisdictions he was familiar with.
Follow the Commission, really fascinating.
One thing they’re looking at is a ‘star’ they can attach to any car they might want to chase later or it can be fired to imbed itself in a vehicle which can be tracked from a copter or drone.
That’s the Future.
Did love ‘Bullitt’ tho.
Katie Porter for Senate !
lol
h.
This article ignores half of the risk assessment. How much will the public’s risk of being a crime victim, including a victim of a violent crime, be reduced if the pursuit policy is loosened? No data on that side of the equation is provided. Criminals currently know they can commit a crime then flee at high speed and they will almost certainly avoid arrest. I’m Yes on E just because it seems intuitively wrong to forbid the police from going after criminals whom they saw commit a crime. It is a near certainty this will result in a higher arrest rate for criminals, and therefore increased public safety. And I’m highly skeptical it will result in appreciable added risk to the public. But if that were to materialize, Prop E does not bar scaling pursuits back. Our SFPD leadership are not idiots. And the current tied hands policy is plainly not working.
SFAtty,
Did y’all see the film D-9 Supe candidate Michael Petrellis got through Public Records Request or something ?
Late night robbery on Castro and a cop car sits there and is 20 feet from them and another cop comes up on another side …
Bottom line is they could have fired one of those ‘Stars’ or more to imbed itself in the vehicle and track it with a drone.
The fear is that it won’t just be bad guys the cops will be bugging and following with drones and they don’t even have to tell anyone what they’re doing until they’ve been using the technology for a year and you know that means never.
Force needs an elected Police Chief so that when people see crime and want someone to blame they can just look in the mirror cause you are the one who picked that punk.
lol
h.
I understand the points made by this article.
I also want to challenge the perception of the status quo. How much safer are the residents of San Francisco when exposed to the stolen SFMTA paint truck driver, or the motorcyclist involved in “violent crimes”, or the professional break-in crews apparently known to be “packing heat”?
We seem to be leading to a mindset where accidental harm or death due to police intervention is somehow worse or more preventable than harm or death due to criminal activity. After all, the police are obligated to abide to the rules set by the public, while criminals clearly are not.
Isn’t the correct response to allow the police to use techniques for apprehending criminals, but instead invest to maximize the training/skills/awareness of those police capable of using them?
An untrained officer shouldn’t be chasing someone through a residential neighborhood at 100mph, but a capable officer shouldn’t be forced to sit on their hands either and allow crime to proliferate.
We are all frustrated by watching police “work under the public’s parameters” as getaway cars stream across the Bay Bridge. I could accept a passive response by the police ie “the responding officer wasn’t trained to safely pursue”. But equally I’d be furious if the officer was trained to safely pursue and instead just went back to clocking hours and eyeing their inevitable pension.
Perceptor,
Why don’t we chase them w/a Waymo ?
Frankly, believe it or not I’m more worried about cops getting hurt.
I’ve worked with them lots in my life as a firefighter and school bus driver and special ed teacher and their now defunct, ‘Wilderness Program’ with Walt Scott was the best and we camped in the Marin Headlands and all risked our lives climbing and we lost a kid once and I went back as night came and found her … lotta good cops.
So, new technology is changing all of that.
Watch the Police Commission.
Starring Max Carter Oberstone as himself
With Cindy Elias as the just a brilliant and prepared and a little sassy Commission President
Pick any meeting from SFGTV archives and you’ll be hooked.
h.
For all of you who think a criminal is doing a careful risk assessment before they try to outrun a cop car, you really are deluded. More car chases will result in more deaths. And one of them may be someone you love.
Givens:
Since prop 47 passed, thefts less than$950 are misdemeanors.
Soft on crime increased lawlessness against businesses and citizens.
More businesses have closed down and some had left.
City is losing its tax base for its services.
SF citizens are not happy with SFGov lack of effective solutions to the problems.
SF Chamber of Commerce stats mentioned 61% of the voters are for measure E.
This means SF law enforcement and SFGov will do more of the following:
Install more cameras in public places and test electronic surveillance methods — with less oversight.
Substitute body-camera footage for other types of documentation .
Engage in more high-speed chases.
Use drones during pursuits
File fewer reports about their use of force
Doing nothing will result in SF becoming more and more like Oakland. You have to think long term and make compromises if you want positive change for what is best for the people and the future of the city. You can’t be thinking about the problem from only one side of a partially filled cup but both sides.
But Bullitt was such a cool movie.
Selling live car chase coverage as subscription service could help the city budget.
Campers,
I’ve got a bad feeling about this one, Will Robinson.
I’m hearing otherwise intelligent people repeating the Prop E talking points.
I saw a very well done ad done as a documentary in the Loin with addicts saying they need tough love and to take away the clean addict gear and let us die.
Really.
Point is that I think we’ve long passed our ‘tipping point’ (no offense, Daniel) and the Talking Points of the Billionaire hires are almost all you see or hear and to many they become axiomatic (that the word?) … true.
What a world for a Cowboy Cop.
I read the entire Prop E a couple of times and there’s a lot of …
“by permission/decision/approval of the Chief”
Then, since the Chief can’t make all of the decisions the power to decide starts being held by ‘Command Staff’ then Captains and then Lieutenants (no ‘Inspectors’ which were first included and then marked out throughout entire document and does someone have problem with them?) …
It ends up that a Sergeant can approve an entire operation to follow Daniel Lurie and his family and friends wherever they go and no one at the top of the Brass has to know about it.
That’s CIA shit.
h.