SF Police Commission adjusts to new, Proposition E-mandated limits

Read Mission Local often?

Help grow our newsroom, joining the 3,250 readers who support us by giving below.

Donate today!

Tensions bubbled under the surface on Wednesday night as the San Francisco Police Commission began conforming to new rules approved by voters under Proposition E, Mayor London Breed’s ballot measure, passed in March, that will loosen certain requirements for the police department and override some of the commission’s powers. 

“The goal is to be fully compliant, and implement the changes that are legally required by Prop. E in a way that is effective, but in a way that also preserves important safeguards and principles of transparency and accountability and fairness,” said Commissioner Kevin Benedicto. “And minimizes backsliding in terms of SFPD’s reform goals, of which it has significantly touted its progress in.” 

What that full compliance might look like was up for debate at last night’s meeting. It became clear that Proposition E’s requirement that the Police Commission involve community input in all policy changes, unless waived by the chief of police, has shifted the policy-setting power toward the chief. 

That became apparent when Vice President Max Carter-Oberstone suggested adding a new provision to the vehicle-pursuits policy, one of seven policies on last night’s agenda with revisions to bring them into compliance with Proposition E. 

SFPD’s vehicle-chase policy under the new measure will allow for police to pursue suspects more readily in the case of potential “violent misdemeanors,” a term that is not defined under the state penal code. 

The measure also calls for annual reporting on car chases, which appeared in a newly added section in the draft policy, requiring the department to report the number of car chases, reasons for them, and how often they resulted in collisions, injuries or deaths. 

Carter-Oberstone called to add arrest data — the measure of the chases’ success — to the annual report, but got pushback from the police chief.

“We’re trying to stick to what was required by law,” Chief Bill Scott said. 

Benedicto noted that arrest data is already collected, and that the commission would ask for that data annually anyway. Commission President Cindy Elias added that Proposition E, as written, “doesn’t conform to best practices,” and said that a “reform-minded” police department should include important data, like arrests from car chases. 

But Scott resisted, and three of Breed’s appointees took Scott’s side. 

Technically, the commission exists to set policy, but Proposition E now requires an extensive public outreach process on any policy changes. That process can only be waived by the chief. In Wednesday’s case, the suggestion to include arrest data would need to go through the outreach process, unless Scott decided to waive that requirement. 

Commissioner C. Don Clay, who is Breed’s newest addition to the body, called Proposition E “the governing document,” and pushed against his fellow commissioners’ attempt to bolster the department’s reporting requirements. 

“I don’t suggest that this is added, because it’s not in the statute,” Clay said. “This follows the statute, period.”

Commissioners Debra Walker and Larry Yee, two of Breed’s other appointees, expressed agreement with Clay and the chief. 

The commission delayed a vote on that policy and three others to a future meeting. 

Commissioners also used tonight as an opportunity to understand the other changes they are required to make. 

For example, Proposition E loosened reporting requirements for use of force to only when injury is sustained or suspected, but officers who pull their firearm from its holster and point it at a person, or use it to compel a person, are still required to write a written report. 

It was unclear from the language whether rifles that shoot rubber or foam bullets are considered firearms, or how officers might be held accountable if pepper spray, for instance, was deployed and no injury was noted. 

Today, upon questioning from Carter-Oberstone, and despite grumbling among police staff in the audience, Scott explained that non-lethal rifles are considered firearms, and officers would be required to report their use. Use of chemical agents, like tear gas or pepper spray would not be reported unless the subject or officer reports an injury. 

“This is the first meeting that our fellow commissioners have been able to comment on this,” Benedicto said. “It’s important that we poke and prod to make sure that everything works.”

And although Elias said the revisions to policies under Proposition E were not meant to open “Pandora’s Box” and allow for other unrelated policy changes, at least one other revision raised concerns outside the commission and police department. 

Under the drafted Proposition E-compliant body-worn camera policy also on the agenda last night, a new provision would allow officers to turn off their cameras “when discussing sensitive tactical or law enforcement information away from members of the public.” 

Deputy Public Defender Brian Cox sent commissioners a letter ahead of today’s meeting, saying officer discretion to turn off their cameras “undermines the purpose of having officers wear [the cameras] in the first place: to promote transparency and accountability, stated goals of the policy.” 

That policy, too, was delayed to a future meeting.