tv Police Commission SFGTV April 11, 2021 7:00pm-10:01pm PDT
>> good evening everyone. and welcome to the regular police commission meeting for wednesday. today's april 7th, 2021. the time is 5:43. we apologize for the delays. we had some technical difficulties. if everyone at this time can place your hand on your heart and stand for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america for which it stands. >> and to the republic for which it stands. >> one nation under god. indivisible -- and justice for
all. thank you commissioner. we've been off two weeks too long. [ laughter ] so, with that, thank you for joining us. sergeant renolds can you please call roll call. >> yes, commissioner. [roll call] also tonight, we have with us chief william scott from the san francisco police department and director paul henderson from the department of police accountability. >> vice president elias: thank you. okay. sergeant renolds can we please call the first line item. >> first line item is general
public comment. the commission welcomes the public for up to two minutes to speak on items that are not on the agenda. under police commission rules of order during public comment, neither police nor d.p.a. personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions by the public but may provide a brief response. comments or opportunities to speak during the public comment period are available via phone by calling (415) 655-0001 and enter access code 1872661112. then press pound and press pound again. dial star 3 if you wish to make a comment. this will advise the moderator that you wish to speak and add you to the queue. alternatively, you may submit
public comment in either of the following ways. e-mail the police commission at sfpd.policecommission. or letters sent to the postal building located at 1245 3rd street, san francisco. seeing if we have any for public comment. looks like we have one caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi there. my name is david aaronson. i'm with the corps team of wealth and disparities in the
black community. we reviewed the materials for tonight's commission meeting and have some concerns and questions on tonight's department of police accountability presentation on discipline. for the 2020 annual report on slide 16 through 18, there were 110 of those sustained as improper conduct. that's about 6% and we have some questions on that. how many were sustained allegations resulted in disciplinary action? how many were discipline -- how much disciplinary action was taken by chief scott? how many officers were disciplined and what was the discipline? same question for the police commission, how many officers were disciplined and what was the discipline there? and also some questions on how allegation is defined. who do those allegations come from? is it the public or other sources? also, who categorizes those complaints as they come in. on slide 8, what's the average
time for preliminary finding. there's no information with respect to timeframes. we understand that investigations may vary, but we're looking for an average. also, on slide 12, what is is the policy failure? does that mean this is a failure to follow policy against a specific action or behavior or that there's no existing policy or is it something else? we strongly believe that outside investigations which are fairly and over seen in needs. it seems such a tiny percentage of disciplinary actions such a large number of complaints is evidence of a lack of accountability for sfpd. we believe this is also related to the ongoing issues police are seeing arrest against the black community. sfpd remains ranked one of the top worst in the country and we feel more accountability is needed. thank you very much. >> thank you, caller.
good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> good evening. my name is kit hodge and i also volunteer at felicia jones and wealth and disparities. as david has mentioned the reviewed materials and have additional questions and concerns. the police commission and the district attorney. we need more firm oversight on police being interviewed after incidents such as officer-involved shootings. officers should be reviewed and give a report after incidents. all the following questions are related to the risk management presentation for tonight's meeting. slide 3 for internal affairs and investigating services commission quote thoroughly investigate bias. why would a police department and especially one with the history and current situation of ongoing massive racial
disparities one of the top three in the countries for anti-black racism in terms of arrests. what are the quotes, problems, and trends involving behavior and attitude that he'd use of force arrest so high in the black community. black citizens are still many times higher. any other racial group. regarding slide 5, [inaudible] great bodily injury. none of those should be investigated by bodies within the police department. they should all involve outside investigators. we strongly believe that we need outside investigations of all serious police misconduct. the department is continuing ongoing issues of black racism. sfpd remains the top worst in the country in this area's. thank you. >> thank you, caller.
looks like that concludes public comment, commissioner. >> vice president elias: thank you. will you please call the next line item. >> line item two. adoption of minutes. action. for the meetings of march 3rd, 10th, and 17th, 2021. >> vice president elias: colleagues, any added suggestions to the meetings for the prior -- i'm sorry, minutes from the prior meeting. >> commissioner: nope. motion to approve. >> commissioner: i'm sorry. vice president elias, what was that we were going to do right now? >> we're on adoption of minutes. >> commissioner: oh. >> vice president elias: any edits you all had or wanted to make before we approve them. >> commissioner: i did not. thank you, vice president.
>> commissioner: motion to approve the minutes. >> vice president elias: thank you. sergeant reynolds. >> would you like public comment for the motion. at this time, if you would like to make a comment call (415) 655-0001 access code 1872661112. press pound and then press pound again. looks like we have no public comment. >> vice president elias: great. can we take a vote? >> clerk: absolutely. on the motion to adopt the minutes [roll call]
looks like you have a vote of four of four. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. will you call the next item. >> clerk: line item 3, consent calendar. receive and file action. enforcement of immigration laws annual report, january 1, 2020, through december 31, 2020. >> vice president elias: i had a question on this one. this was the enforcement of the immigration laws annual report and in the packet, it seems that it was the d.g.o.5.15. was there an actual report or just the d.d.o.? >> there's a report.
>> vice president elias: okay. >> it says zero on everything. >> vice president elias: that's right. okay. so it's on the consent calendar. so unless any of my fellow commissioners would like to agendize this. >> commissioner: no. there's nothing to report. >> vice president elias: okay. i think we can move along. >> clerk: i apologize, vice president elias, how do you vote for the adoption of the minutes. >> vice president elias: yes. you had the floor so i was fine. >> clerk: thank you. >> vice president elias: the most important one. >> you should see john's face. >> clerk: would you like to go to the next line item. >> vice president elias: please. >> clerk: line item 4 reports to the commission. discussion. chief's report. weekly crime trends, provide an overview of offenses occurring in san francisco.
major/significant incidents. provide a summary of planned activities and events. this will include a brief overview of any unlannedn'ts or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting. >> okay. thank you, sergeant reynolds. good evening vice president elias, commissioners, executive director henderson, and the public. i'll start this week's report off with our general crime update with the statistics. and there's some good news and some news is not so good. in terms of good news, i'll start there. the news is, the better news is that our violent crime is down significantly overall in terms of our part environment crime we're down in every category.
so homicide we've slowed down. we're even with where we were this time last year. we have a negative 53% increase in rates. 20% decrease in robberies. 7% decrease in assaults and a 20% decrease in human trafficking. overall, there's a 20% decrease in violent crimes which represents about 300 crimes, fewer than we were this time last year. the bad news is property crimes although there is some good news to report here, they are significantly up in burglaries. we have closed the gap a little bit and slowed it down a little bit thanks to some of our strategies and i believe the help of the public in being more resilient. so we're at 45% increase down from a 56% increase last month. so that is a significant drop in the rate of burglaries, but we're still up significantly and have a lot of work to do in that area. motor vehicle thefts, we're
still up significantly 16% which represents about 200 more than we had this time last year and we're also up. arson's 38%. that's about close to 30 arsons. actually, 26 arsons from this time last year. the good news with the property crimes is we're down 40% in larceny and theft including that category which are announced significantly. down twenty-three% from this time last year. another thing for us to both address and keep an eye on is our economy re-opens is we're seeing things slowly get back to normal with visitors in the city and so we really have to be out working with public in terms of not letting this go on the wrong direction, but we are still up -- i mean, down, starting with car burglaries.
overall, i mentioned we are even with where we were this time last year with homicide, but we did have two homicides since we last met and i'll go into detail on both of those in a second. first, gun violence, we are up significantly this year still. it slowed down a little bit. as of this report, 69 incidents of gun violence compared to 24 last year. that's a significant increase and numerical increase. homicide with gun violence were actually down now which is good news. but still we had five homicides related to firearms this year related to homicide. bayview is up in gun related incidents, shootings, 18 year to date. 8 this time last year. mission's up. 12 compared to 3 last time. northern is up.
4 compared to 1. park has 1. ingleside 6. two this time last year. the other four stations are even with where they were this time last year and the numbers are very small. so i'm going to talk a little bit about the two homicide and then talk about our strategies. since we last met, we have had two homicide. one was on april the 1st and that was the 900 block in the bayview district. also responded to a shooting incident found the victim not breathing with multiple gunshot wounds. attempts to save his life were met unsuccessfully and our victim succumbed to injuries. hopefully we can bring this case to resolution soon and we do have some good leads and some indications of potential suspects in that case. the other murder was at 24th
and mission on march 29th. several shots were fired at 24th and mission. officers responded located one victim with a gunshot wound in the shoulder and armpit area. they attempted to employ life-saving tactics, but the victim was announced at the scene. later, a second victim flagged down a fire truck that responded to this location and reported that he also shot in the same incident. there is surveillance video that we've been able to is evident. so we do have some leads on this particular case and i think we're in the right direction as far as the investigation is on their case and we'll keep the commission and the public posted. if anybody has any information regarding clues or tips about these two murders or crimes of
that matter. please call (455) 775-4444. our tip line. there were two other shooting incidents on the 2500 block of olsen that happened on april fiveth and the other one on the 4th at 20th and folsom. they appear to be unrelated but both of those remain unsolved at this point. both victims are expected to survive. as far as strategies, our bayview strategies are ongoing. we still have our foot patrols on 3rd street between paloa. and between mckinnen and revere. officers are assigned to those. they're expected to stay visible in those areas. if not 24-hour deployment, but we deploy officers particularly during the daytime and busy hours when we have a lot of pedestrians and business traffic in that area.
directed to engage with the community, not just be out there, not be out there for the purposes of enforcing and really engaging with the community and working with the community to make that area safe for as best we can. moving to burglaries. as i said, we have seen a decrease in the rate. that is good news. we still have a lot of work to do because burglaries are continually happening. this is more of a national trend and we're seeing it in other cities as well. the districts that have been impacted heavily including the richmond district, we put out detailed both plain-clothed and uniformed detailed in areas. we've had stops on burglaries in process. we've made some arrests and also the visibility we believe served as deterrents. so those strategies will continue. we also have staff put
[inaudible] along the cement street in the cement corridor and they are tasked with engaging with the public and businesses and hopefully reducing the rate of victimization from that area. captains continue to conclude information in a weekly newsletter informing the community and hopefully we're asking the community to be resilient. make sure you lock your doors and do the basic safety measures to help keep yourself resilient. lock your doors particularly with garages. we've had a number of garage burglaries in which bicycles were stolen. check your locking mechanisms to make sure they're functional. they do have locks out on the market that are harder to break into garages, so i would invite the public to check those out. there are a lot of different manufacturers that make them. also sf safe has done a campaign to upgrade locks.
you can contact s.f. safe as well on their website and schedule a community meeting or work through your station to have them take a look at your location, business, or home to give a preventive safety advice and they do that free of charge. other incidents that i'd like to report before i close, we have one fatal traffic collision at 3rd and folsom on the 3rd of april. our victim unfortunately was a 78-year-old lady and she was struck in the middle of 3rd street at the intersection of folsom. unfortunately, she did not survive her injuries and we don't believe this was criminal. we did not make an arrest in this case. we believe this was just an unfortunate traffic collision. so the message here is please be aware of your surroundings.
pay attention to the traffic signs, the road signage. if you're going to cross the street, cross at a crosswalk. pay attention to the signals in terms of when you're supposed to cross and particularly with wide intersections on busy streets, be very cautious on crossing outside of the crosswalks and those types of locations. but those basic kind of things also could prevent these type of things and strategies. as far as major events, we have no major events coming this week, however, that will cause problems, but we are like everybody else probably in this country and internationally, keeping an eye on the minneapolis case. we are preparing, we're updating our officers with crowd training, crowd management training and the like. we are scheduling community
meetings to discuss these issues and in preparation of what might happen and part of this process of strategy is to really engage with the public, have discussions and work with some of our public leaders and community leaders have a place for people to voice their opinions and events in a constructive way because there's a lot of people that are very concerned with what they're seeing in these trials and it really is our duty to make sure we work with the public to keep our city as safe as we can and also give people an opportunity to express themselves. so that's our charge and our over-apriling strategy, but that's ongoing and the trial's in its second week. we've been in touch on a national level with other cities including minneapolis and they're keeping us posted with what's happening with the trial and what's happening there because that is probably going to be um, whatever happens there will be a good
indication of what's going to happen in other parts of the country. so we're keeping an eye on that as well. and that is it for this week's report. if you have any questions. thank you. >> vice president elias: thank you, chief. commissioner brookter. >> commissioner brookter: yes. thank you vice president elias. thank you for that report, chief. it's good to hear and see some of the numbers going down, but one of the questions that i had and i also want to say thank you to you for really listening to the commission and i think members of the public when we talked about ensuring we have more foot beats and more police officer presence and you stayed true to that. so i want to say thank you to you for that. but the question that i have and excuse my ignorance, but as i see the homicides especially in bayview and we're still continuing to see gun violence. we touched on it briefly in the last meeting where we talked about some of the buy back programs, but are there any other strategies that we have
or we've seen or we're able to get firearms off the street. are there tactics where we work with folks who might be arms dealers and we're getting mass amounts of guns off the streets and not into the hands of folks on the black market. do we have folks who are, you know, patrolling the internet to see where some of these transactions might be taking place? i'm just thinking and talking out loud, but it's something i've been thinking about as we continue to see the gun violence come up. >> thank you, commissioner, for that question. yes. there are some strategies that we are involved in. your question about trying to figure out where guns are coming from. so we are part of a regional effort. about three years ago, we set up a gun crime investigation center or gun crime intelligence center it's known in some places, and we work with local departments, we work with the state agencies as well
as the federal agencies such as the a.t.f. and the reason i bring that up is the basis of this whole effort is to try to identify guns coming into our state legally and illegally including the ghost guns that we're seeing on the street. so our partnership with a.t.f. does this. they have a program where they try to trace the origins of guns and try to determine where they're coming from and if that is -- if that source is an illegal on the black market if you will of sorts, then they can deal with that on a federal level since some of those places are out of state. we do get guns that we've confiscated, but that program, we've seen some success both at a local level, a regional level and most importantly, the collaboration is very important when it comes to that type of basic training. the other thing is we do have
some local programs. local legislation or state legislation that was implemented a few years ago on guns, violence restraining orders. you know, between us, our sheriffs, we have details that deal with people who are prohibited from possessing guns because of domestic violence restraining orders and alike. so when those individuals are found with guns, we're able to confiscate them, in some cases, we're able to arrest them. that's part of our effort as well as well as the probation. the other thing with prohibited possessors is we do follow up on individual who is are prohibited from owning firearms. for instance, people that have been hospitalized under 5150 welfare and institutions code. people prohibited from owning
firearms because of certain types of crimes like domestic violence and those folks can be monitored and we do do that and that sometimes deals with the possession of guns when they're not to possess them and the ability were appropriate to enforce on that. those are just some of the things we're doing. we're trying to really build out the collaboration in the regional strategies. homicide will happen here and it's connected to something that happened. but sacramento, some cases, so we're trying to approach this on a regional level. so more work needs to be done with that piece although there's good communication, there needs to be some regularity to a reasonable approach and there is a will to do that. a lot of the regional, local and state local partners are
trying to make that happen so we can be better at that. >> commissioner: thank you for that, chief. and i think it's good for members of the public to know. because we know it's not just a san francisco issue and/or problem, but to know we are at the table and there's conversations and strategies being set up and had is good to know. thank you. >> thank you. >> vice president elias: chief, i had a question about you indicated the burglaries are up 25%, but down from from last month, 65%. were there any new strategies that you employed to account for the decline in burglaries or was it just coincidence? >> i'd like to think that some of the strategies that we employed -- it went down from 56 was the number a month ago. commissioner elias, part of what we've done in the area that is were hit hard, a lot of what we're seeing or still
continue to see are happening overnight. so we shifted some of our resources, you know, we're deployed overnight because there's less calls for service and that type of thing. we had to shift some of our resources, our specialized plain-clothed units to work overnight and, with that, i think we've deterred some of the burglaries because people know we're out there. we're also arresting some people who were committing burglaries. caught in the act. some scoping the area and that type of thing and so that -- we believe that's had some payoffs particularly in those areas, the richmond district, the mission district. i think i reported to the commission last month where one of our officers was stabbed who was assigned to that overnight detail and they were disrupting a burglary in process or one that had just happened when he was stabbed by the individual that came in contact with who had committed the burglary.
so they're also back to work and they are continuing to do that type of work. so that's a part of it. i think the other part is being visible. you know, we've got to be out there and be visible and so the people who are thinking about committing burglaries anywhere out there, there's a chance they're going to be a cop, that has a huge dividend and a third part we've been very intentional about and working with district attorney and his staff is tracking the repeat offenders and we've seen some success there working with the d.a. so if we get a person who has a history of burglary arrest and/or conviction and we come in contact with that person for whatever they're arrested for, we flag the d.a. on that and, in some cases, it's resulted in people being detained because of their criminal history. so we're going to thank the d.a.'s office and their staff for working with us on that.
we've had some success there as well. and so we'll continue to do that. apart of what we believe is happening, there are a group of very prolific burglars out there that are not only hitting san francisco, we know they're hitting in other cities too. so when we come across those people, we do whatever we can. >> vice president elias: great. that's good to hear. thank you for your report, chief. fellow commissioners, anyone else have anything for the chief before we turn to director henderson? okay. great. director henderson. >> director: before you begin, vice president elias, we have to go back to line item 3. was there a motion for the consent calendar? >> vice president elias: i thought there was. but if there wasn't, can i get a motion. >> commissioner: so moved. >> commissioner: second. >> director: we need public comment now for the consent
you have five yeses. moving on to 4b. dpa director's report. report on recent dvmentd p.a. activities and announcements. d.p.a.'s report will be limited to a brief description of d.p.a. activities and announcements. commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting. presentation of the february 2021 monthly statistical report. director henderson. >> good evening. i know i'm talking a little funny. i had oral surgery. i'm still recovering. i will get through the note. but if it gets too painful then [inaudible] is going to pop in sorry for these random noises. so the cases that are open this
year, we've opened 204 cases so far this year. this time last year, we have over 215 cases to close 187 cases this time last year, we closed 273. we have 307 cases pending open this year. this time last year, we have 375. we've sustained 16 cases this year. this time last year, with the same 11. we have 33 cases with investigations that have gone over nine months. this time last year, we had 33 cases that have gone past the nine-month mark and i'm going to come back to that in a second. six cases. i think what was posted was
eight but that was an error essentially six cases this year. this time last year, we have mediated nine. going back to the cases where investigations have gone longer than nine months as a reminder, since i've become director, we have not had a case that have gone beyond the 34 cases. i think a couple of the commissioners asked me in the previous meeting to make sure i'm tracking those numbers and i did. but this week i did an extensive and deep dive into all these cases just to get a better snapshot of some of the reasons why cases have been delayed for whatever reason. and here's just some of what i found, but this is typical of what i found in the past and i just wanted to convey some of it because this is the typical information that i give every week. investigations have taken longer than nine months.
18 of those cases are told meaning they have pending cases in the criminal court, civil courts. three of the cases have open or pending criminal investigations. two of those cases have officer-involved shooting cases. at least one of the cases was delayed due to voluminous viral on camera trying to collect that information. by the way, both the cases that were reported, we have the information now from the department, but this number fluctuates. this is part of the reason why it's hard to drill down on this number, to get it down to zero, but the cases that have been recorded for this week have already been remedied or we've received the information now. several cases where officers,
more than several, almost half a dozen where cases have been delayed because the officers themselves are on vacation or disability. so scheduling the interview has been difficult. and the rest of the cases either involve conflicts, investigations, and/or about to be finalized for closure in the next few days and weeks. so i just wanted to give a little bit of a deeper dive this week because often times you ask me just beyond total in cases what are the cases looking like that have had delays that cause the closures to take place longer than nine months. so i just wanted to give you guys that feedback and to assure everyone i am reviewing cases with this much diligence, myself and my staff. to
on the 30th. that was the other followup meeting with racial equity groups. on the 31st, we met with the mayor's office. it was a racial equity convening meeting to go over the racial equity plan. d.p.a. finished their racial equity plan on time and turned it in for review from the mayor's office. i believe that plan will be public as well. on march 31st, we met with the office of transgender initiative discussing outreach strategies in combination with the d.p.a. specifically targeted for the lgbtq community. lgbtqi community. on april 1st, we hosted a public meeting virtually for our mediation presenting an overview on what our mediation does and all of our mediators were invited and participated in that as well. on april 2nd, the d.p.a. hosted
an event with san francisco young defenders. young defenders is a program that reaches out to high school students and teaches them about criminal justice. the criminal justice system and criminal justice reforms. in addition to that, i made a couple of presentations and with a keynote speaker for a group of newspapers and the b.a.r., it was their 50th anniversary here in san francisco, that's the lgbtq [inaudible] bay area. and a keynote speaker for california peninsula news community center that had an open forum for the state and the rest of the nation on current topics and criminal justice reform talking about police reform efforts. here today and on the call with us is one of our senior
investigators susan gray who will be following up in case any issues arrive tonight that d.p.a. can be responsive to. and d.p.a. can be reached 24 hours a day at our website sfgov.org. that concludes my presentation, but i will note that we have a longer presentation coming forward in item 6 where we have the comparison -- we have a comparison with dpa with internal affairs and we have one case in closed session. all right. i'm done. sorry. my voice. >> vice president elias: thank you for powering through. i mean, we kind of feel bad for
making you suffer through this. >> director: i can talk. it just sounds funny. i can make it sound better and enunciate, but it is painful. >> vice president elias: don't to that. mouth pain is the worse. thank you for your report. any fellow commissioners have any questions, comments, concerns for director henderson? i wanted to say i was able to attend a part of the women's history month celebration that your office did and i was really impressed. the keynote speakers you had and the women that you were celebrating especially in all areas of government public and private sectors. it was really great and refreshing to hear because you get to see not only women, but women of color in powerful positions and actually explaining how they got there and some of the challenges that they had faced. so it was really -- i really enjoyed myself. i wish i could have stayed the
entire time, but from what i did see, it was great and congratulations to you and your office for putting that together. it was something that was really cool. >> director: thank you for coming. i do think it's important that we lead by example and try to show some of the other agencies. my wonderful speech all about you and your great work. just know that i said good things. >> vice president elias: well, that's good. and i didn't even have to pay you. so that's good. >> director: i know. thank you for attending. it meant a lot also to my staff who just know that commissioners showed up to see some of the work you do. especially the women. >> vice president elias: you did a great job. ms. thompson was as always a phenomenal speech. so, commissioners, anything before we move on to commission
reports? okay. sergeant reynolds. >> clerk: line item 4c commission reports. commission reports will be limited to a brief announcement to determine whether any of the issues ranged for the commission meeting. commissioner's report commission announcements and scheduling of items identified for future commission meetings. action. >> vice president elias: was there an actual presentation of the 2021 monthly statistical report? >> director: i just got a text that said i didn't say anything about it. i'm so sorry. yes. hold on. i just have to turn to it. i forgot all about it. here it is. it's in there.
i think it's line item 4. it's in the same -- it's already posted as public. the only thing that i thought was exceptional are [inaudible] again. they're mostly the numbers that i've given. the only thing that i would point out there is the trend in terms of where prices are headed in terms of volume of places. so even though we have the same amount of cases exactly coincidentally as we had last february for 2021 the 2021 pace total is still 30% higher than the 5 year average. [please stand by]
>> so people know and understand the work that the agency is doing, and we do that regularly and monthly, and it's on not just our agenda, but for folks that want to do a deep dive can look on our website to see all of that information is available any time, and it's updated monthly. >> vice president elias: okay. thank you.
okay. seeing no comments by my fellow commissioners, i guess we can move onto commission reports. oh, i'm sorry. commissioner yee? >> commissioner yee: yeah. i just wanted to touch bases on what i announced for the last meeting where we had a conference over at the chinese american police association, where we had our new [inaudible] and also commissioner john hamasaki speak to our community. also want to thank chief scott for joining our rallies in chinatown. one was in union square where he spoke on how to stop the asian hate, and that was touched on the heart.
so as we continue to fight asian hate, i'll be going around the community to create the public awareness -- safety awareness. thank you. >> vice president elias: thank you, commissioner yee. anyone else? >> commissioner dejesus: i'm not sure this is the right place. commissioner elias talked about bias. you talk a lot about bias in your report, and i don't know if this is the right place, but i was thinking, you know, we had dante king come and do the report regarding bias, but i'm thinking that's something we should follow up on those issues that were raised by mr.
king and follow up on those. i don't know if this is the right place. >> vice president elias: no, this is the right place. what did you have in mind, commissioner dejesus? the next step he had in mind? >> commissioner dejesus: yeah, next steps. it was a good report by the chief and by him and by us, so rather than letting it fall by the wayside, letting us know how we're addressing it if at all, and if not, what we're going to do to address it. >> and we'll have him
[inaudible]. >> commissioner dejesus: so that was a eye-opening presentation and in terms of his letter, so i would like a presentation on how we're addressing his issues, and if we're not, how we're going to. i just want to make sure we stay on top of it. >> vice president elias: sounds great. we'll add it to the agenda items to be covered. the one thing i'd like to add to the agenda items in the future, i know that we are having a presentation on the i.a. process as well as d.p.a.s process, and i really appreciate that. one thing i do want to also note and agendize is i'd like to -- and maybe i am moving a little ahead of the program here, but the actual analysis
in terms of the cases and the actual findings of i.a. i think if we can get a little bit more information as to the substantive part of what i.a. does, that would be great, so i'm going to add that to the list of items to agendize in the future. okay. and i don't see anyone in the chat, so can we move along, sergeant? >> clerk: absolutely. we'll move along to public comment. if you would like to make public comment, please press pound, three, and pound, three again. looks like we have one caller for public comment. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> good evening.
this is karen freshman, and i would just like to say on the public comment, it doesn't say pound, three, it says star, three, so i kept hitting star, three and wondering why aren't they calling on me, so just for your information. commissioners, i am actually calling on behalf of my friend, rhonda page, who is visiting san francisco. her daughter, morgan page, is a first-year student at the city of san francisco. and a week ago, she was returning to kansas after her second covid vaccine shot in a lyft that was rear-ended. the drivers that rear-ended the lyft urged her not to call the police. he was an immigrant, he was very confused, he was calling
his friend to tell him what to do. my friend called me and i was unable to travel, so i called my friend in that neighborhood and asked him to call sfpd, which he did, and he told me sfpd was on its way, but her daughter stayed there -- like, basically the lyft driver left the screen, the driver who hit the lyft driver left the scene. her daughter stayed there for about an hour. she was rear-ended, she had a whiplash, like, a concussion situation. she was in a very bad state, and finally, she just walked back to her dorm from that accident by herself because no one showed. it turns out that sfpd did show up, like, an hour later, but bottom line, this is a -- this is a young black woman who was
left at the side of the road, and no one showed up for her to try and help her when she was harmed in an accident. and i just want to say, as a taxpayer, as a mother, if people call in in an accident, people need to show up and help that person out. >> vice president elias: any other callers? >> clerk: checking now, commissioner. looks like we have one more caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> yes. i'm calling from the intersection of keith and thomas avenue. that's about eight to ten residents of us. we're a collective, working
with captain mron, and before that, we were working with captain singleton -- or excuse me, captain dangerfield. we've got 20 cars, about 12 cars blocking the street. we had a death in october, murder in october, and we're trying to get resources to this area. sfpd, like, right now, they're taking care of a barricaded suspect, and we need more officers on this block. whatever we can do, we're working with the city attorney, other city agencies, sfmta, and we just need more, so i just wanted to put that out there. >> clerk: thank you, caller.
>> vice president elias: anyone else? >> clerk: checking now. yes, vice president elias, that is all for public comment. >> vice president elias: okay. next line item? >> commissioner dejesus: wait a minute. if someone has a complaint against the department, could you just put out how people can contact you with a complaint? >> sure. in addition, you can go to the d.p.a. website at sfdpa. or you can call the office: 415-775-7711, and there is someone on the line to help people contact us, as well. the easiest way is for you to contact the d.p.a. through the website, so it's sfgov.gov/dpa
or call 775-7711, and that's 24 hours. thank you. >> vice president elias: thank you. i appreciate that. next line item? >> clerk: line item 5, risk management overview presentation, discussion. >> vice president elias: all right. who is going to be presenting? >> i believe it will be commander o'sullivan.
>> good evening, commissioners. this evening, i am pleased to present an overview of how the department investigates allegations of officer misconduct with particular focus on the internal affairs division and investigative services detail. i will discuss the types of complaints investigated by the department, how those investigations are conducted, the review process of the investigations, and how discipline is imposed. so i'll start here with the report to the district chief of staff, chief mosier.
there are several departments covered by the risk management office, including the body camera unit, the early intervention unit, the equal employment opportunity, also known as e.e.o., the legal division, the internal afars division, and the investigative services detail. there are four lieutenants that are assigned within the risk management offices. those four work with the captain. currently, that's captain mark cota, and i work with the captain and the four lieutenants. okay. if you'd advance the next slide. so what are the goals of the internal affairs division? at this point, from this point forward, i'll be talking about the internal affairs decision as well as the investigative affairs detail. as an agency, we strive to conduct fair and impartial comprehensive and timely investigations with an eye
towards procedural justice as it applies to the community as well as to the officers whom we are investigating. our -- the internal affairs division assumes responsibility for the maintenance of all complaint investigation files, and we are a very secure facility here. there is confidentiality regarding the entirety of this process which will be discussed at length here in the presentation. if you'd please advance the slide. so among our goals, and these goals are actually delineated in proper procedural manual that the department has been working on, number one, because we need that manual, number two, because it's very responsive to the collaborative reform initiatives and foundation. we strive to improve the public perception of the department
prepandemic, members of the internal affairs division along with chief of staff, sarah hawkins from d.p.a. i know that sarah will be doing a presentation after me. those two, sarah and joint investigators make presentations at community meetings to explain to the community the internal affairs investigative process. we're also alert to potential problems and trends, and i think this really speaks, it speaks to department general order 2.04, public complaints, specifically, the disciplinary review board. some of the commissioners have been involved in that process from the very start, and this is as an agency, in collaboration with the d.p.a., we're recognizing problems and trends, and reporting back to chief mosier, and sarah hawkins also did a presentation, too, and that information is
presented back to the department members. advance to the next slide. so what are the types of cases investigated by the internal affairs division? and commissioner elias, i heard your comment about i'll come back -- most likely, it'll be me, and i'll get into as a government code and the policy procedure and as laws allow, we'll get into more substantively what some of those investigations are, but for tonight, any way, the director has provided that process. so as is listed here, we within the department investigate complaints of misconduct by sworn members and investigate misconduct by professional members. that might be one of our
p.s.a.s, police service aides, and we also involved all in-custody shootings, use of death, and bodily injuries. we have an inspector here. he's a direct report to the captain, and he is our liaison to city d.h.r. there's, of course, department general order that speaks to protected activity. any member that would feel they have been victimized and
reports any untoward activity that would fall under general order 11.07, that comes to director liu, and he'll forward it to d.h.r., oftentimes there's an administrative component to that, and those cases can be bifurcated or they can be returned by cindy for us to assume the investigation. there's other types of cases as listed there. i know you all have heard me in the past make quarterly references to our audits, electronic communication devices, you know, sometimes what we find through those audits causes us to initiate an investigation. there are more innocuous types of investigations, although no less serious, where a member might fail to appear for a
range qualification report or physical fitness test. just if you're wondering, i have a total of 18 slides, and i'll be mindful of the ten minutes that commissioner cohen has set on us. station level investigation, the internal affairs investigation is comprised of a lieutenant. we have four attorneys, we have, i believe, ten, 11 investigators. they're all sworn members that are at the rank of sergeant. we handle certain types of investigations within the internal affairs division, but given the totality, given the total number that are generated each year, there's a number of investigations that are referred back to the commanding officer, and you can see on this slide the types of reports that are sent back to
commanding officers. when we send those investigations back to the stations, by and large, it's one of the ten district stations, though not exclusively. they have 30 days, 30 calendar days to turn those investigations around. there are extenuating circumstances, and we certainly work with the commanding officers, and they have some leeway. next slide. so you'll hear from miss hawkins later. just want to point this out by way of differentiation. the main point to take away here is, by and large, we're looking with exception on those specific types of cases. we look at off-duty conduct. d.p.a. looks at on-duty conduct, and there's some parallel on investigations. within that on-duty police misconduct, you know, complaints regarding police use
of force, discourtesy, failure to take actions, and as sarah will probably get into, officer-involved shootings that result in physical injury or death. next slide, please. so government code 3304, i no he that in past commission discussions, this reference to government code 3304 has come up, and director henderson tonight, as he does on most, if not all of his presentations, he talks on his side about cases and where they are relative to the 3304 date. and in layman's terms, when the department becomes aware of possible misconduct, we have one year from the date that somebody becomes aware of it that's in a position to
actually conduct the investigation. we have a year to conduct the investigation and notify the member whether they're sustained or not sustained, the allegations of misconduct. there's some exceptions, and i know the director has noted to them, as well, and they're listed here on the slide. if there's an exception to the internal investigation, the time will toll. we see it in investigative matters where there might be a lawsuit filed against the city. i want to stress here that the exceptions are very rare and
few and far between for us. my experience has been, and i think it's been this way for a number of years, is what gets told is officer-involved investigations and things of a criminal matter. so here, this is the first of two slides that will look at the overview of the complaint process. you know, i was speaking with somebody earlier. i certainly could go an hour into how this process works, and i'm not going to do that, but i expect that maybe after i'm finished that you'll have some questions, and i can go over this for you. without going over every box, i'd like to tell you that we receive complaints in a multitude of ways, and that might be through a phone call, through internally, from a member of the public, it might
be from the department of police accountability, and eventually, the complaint is reviewed by the officer on duty. it's typically a sergeant, and he or she is going to do an investigation to see whether or not that falls within the purview of the internal affairs decision. they'll also check to see if the investigation has already been initiated and/or already concluded. if we get past that screening process, the investigation will be assigned to one of the investigators within the internal affairs division. if it's administrative in nature, of course, it goes to the internal affairs division. if there is a criminal component to it, as you can
see, if under the assigned -- in the assignment column, you'll see there are cases assigned to i.s.d. that's our investigative services detail, which i'll talk about in a little bit. the investigative services detail, she will make a referral over to the investigation said, and they will initiate an investigation. the investigation, speaking in keeping it in context of the internal affairs investigation -- so i would just like the audience to think about that on the administrative side of things -- again, we have investigative and we have criminal -- that investigator works in that one-year time frame, and once that investigator completes his or her investigation, it's submitted to the officer in charge of the internal affairs division. she then does an assessment of the case, and she will then --
she'll evaluate the case and comes to a conclusion whether or not she agrees with the find beings of the investigator. we do not -- just -- findings of the investigator. we do not -- just so anyone is aware, we do not ask anyone to change their findings. this is very much a process that each individual -- and i'll explain the process -- he or she weighs in on whether they agree with the investigator's findings, and then, we discuss recommendations if they're sustained allegations with regards to discipline. so you can go to the next slide. once the lieutenant evaluates the case, she makes a determination of whether or not she agrees with the finding or findings of the recommendation, she makes a recommendation of discipline if we have sustained findings, and we operate in the san francisco police department, as i'm sure other
departments do, on the progressive discipline model. that recommendation is forwarded to the captain and from the captain to me, and then, i forward it to the assistant chief. throughout that process, each of us independently and separately read the case and we offer our opinion as to whether we agree with the investigator's findings, and then we offer our recommendation for discipline. every monday morning, we then meet with the chief of police, we meet with chief scott, and we do a case file presentation. the lieutenant will read her evaluation to the chief, and then, we have a roundtable discussion as to each of us offer our opinions as to the findings and the recommendation of discipline. i think i'll skip ahead at this point to the next slide and maybe speak a little bit more about that in the q&a as to, you know, what happens in the
chief's determination. the investigative services division, if you will, is the brother and sister to the internal affairs division. that, like the internal affairs division, is led by a lieutenant, and there are sergeants, there's a team of investigators assigned to that unit. they -- their primary mission is to investigate allegations of criminal conduct by members, whether they're sworn or not, within the city and county of san francisco, and they also play a role in the investigation of officer involved shootings and custody deaths and designated uses of force. i'm going to get a little bit more into that if you go to the next slide. we, beginning in may 2019, the department entered into a
memorandum of understanding or m.o.u. with the san francisco district attorney's office, and this was kind of a seminal moment with the department because it was at this point that there was an agreement made that the d.a.s office would be the lead investigative agency for officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, and great uses of force that result in great bodily injury and require admission to a hospital. i.i.d., which is the investigative -- the internal investigative bureau of the d.a.s office, they are now lead to examine whether or not there was any criminal conduct on the part of our members relative to those three types of incidents. we, as i.s.d. in this case, will investigate the ancillary crime, so the associated crime, if you will, with those types of incidents. so, for example, if there was a robbery that preceded an
officer-involved shootings, our i.s.d. would investigate the robbery that is alleged to have been committed by the individual upon whom force was used. next slide. so i spoke to this. again, the d.a.s office is responsible for those criminal investigations as it relates to in-custody deaths, officer-involved shootings, and uses of force. the m.o.u. is due to expire in may of this year, and it will be renewed. myself, assistant chief mosier, and members of the district attorney's office, including mr. campos, in the last six weeks, have been talking about
the renewal of the m.o.u. and am pleased to report that we've talked through some of the edits, and we're very close to having an m.o.u. for signature for chief scott and d.a. boudin. so these next few slides will speak to the process within the process within the i.s.d. i know there was questions raised and interest expressed by members of the commission as what is the communication like under the umbrella of these two units? i'll tell you there's a lot of discussion that goes on on a regular basis. being as large of an agency as we are, there's always something that needs to be attended to on a daily basis, but structurally, we also meet
on a basis, as well. what that looks like is every other tuesday, i meet with the captain and the two other units of the respective units, agencies, if you will, and we go overall of the outstanding cases. the officer of the investigative services detail, he'll come in, he'll go over his cases. that provides situational awareness for the lieutenant. he'll then step out of the room so as to not cross pollenate the two investigations, and then, the lieutenant, she'll go through all of her cases that are currently open within her division. next slide? transfer of cases. so we -- getting back to kind of the tolling provision, if you will, so if there's -- if we open a criminal
investigation, we will open an administrative investigation, as well. sometimes, the administrative investigation will proceed concurrent with the investigative services detail investigation; and that's really kind of dependent on the information that's going to be transferred from i.s.d. to i.a.d. when the investigative services division completes their investigation, they will transfer their information over to i.a.d. so they can then begin their investigation relative to the criminal investigation. next slide. so we're here at the last two -- two slides, and this is a -- a response to a question that was posed to us is what happens if the district attorney does not file charges on the criminal case? so again, if our investigators,
led by the lieutenant, takes a case to the i.a.d., and the district attorney declines to file the case, that does not mean it's the end of the investigation. it certainly means it's the end of the criminal investigation, but again, that case comes over to the administrative side to look for possible violations of policy and procedure. one thing i want to point out here that, you know, for the public, certainly, when we do an administrative investigation, the standard that we have is a preponderance of the evidence. so what that means is based on the facts, the investigation, that it is more likely than
not, meaning 50.1% that the alleged misconduct occurred to sustain a case. as we know, the criminal side is beyond a reasonable doubt, so there's a higher standard. next slide. and then finally, criminal cases from outside jurisdictions. you know, we -- you know, probably the -- an example of this is one of the members is arrested for driving under the influence, for example. our internal affairs division will coordinate and we'll collaborate with that outside agency, and they will obtain the information often in the form of an arrest report. it might be body-worn camera footage that's associated with it, and they would use that information to initiate an administrative investigation. so that concludes my presentation. i'm happy to answer any questions.
>> vice president elias: and within the ten-minute timeline, so you're winning. >> i was going to ask. i didn't start my timer, so it's great to do that. >> vice president elias: great. i would like to turn it over to my fellow commissioners. i think commissioner dejesus had one. >> sure. >> commissioner dejesus: so i feel like i had more than one. before i got on tonight, i noticed there was a letter from the wealth of disparity group, and they have a lot of questions, but one of them that i had and they have, and i think the public always has is -- and i'm glad to hear this presentation -- but the question is how can the police investigate themselves? i think you did a good job
laying out the parameters and what to look out for, but i think the public is curious into making sure that what safeguards to you have to ensure that your investigation is trustworthy, and for lack of a better word, justice is being restored in the department itself? that's one of the questions that they've also asked. >> sure. so i'm happy to go through that question. the thing that immediately comes to mind, commissioner. i'll go back to the process that i spoke of, is that there are multiple layers of review within the san francisco police department, so again, you know, we take the complaint, an investigator, he or she, conducts the investigation.
a lieutenant reviews that investigation and then makes recommendations. it then goes to the captain, police, myself, to the assistant chief, and then ultimately to the chief of police. i can appreciate the question and understand the question from the public is to say well, how do you know that you're doing everything that you possibly could? and, you know, that certainly comes down to a matter of trust, and, you know, us performing not only in this venue but in everything that we do that our actions are consistent with being just and being trustworthy and fair. it's to have five or six individuals look at a case, and to do it in the collaborative manner that we do, i hope instills some confidence, them hearing that, that the
department is doing a thorough investigation. we have -- internally, we have benchmarks for our investigators. we have high expectations for our investigators. we have dialogue in the risk management process, and certainly, this process of reporting out to you and what the future process might be because i know that there's a lot of work that's been done within the accountability bucket of the c.r.i.s. i think that, you know, knowing some of the things that have been done and what is in process, the department is not only doing it now but in the future is going to be in a position of being much more
flexible publicly. >> if i can answer that, too, commissioner dejesus, compared to most other departments in the country, we have a very good model because we have, first of all, civilian oversight. as the public knows, any cases over ten-day suspension level will go to the commission for oversight and adjudication. number one, that's a level of separation away from the department where the independent body on the most serious cases, those cases are reviewed and adjudicated by an independent body. any public complaint is going to be investigated by the department of police accountability, which, as everybody might know who's listening, is separate from the department, so that's another level of independent oversight and review. commander o'sullivan mentioned a review that we now have with
the district attorney's office where they investigate not only officer-involved shootings but covered things, like in-custody deaths and investigations where police are off the record, so that's another level of independence, and that leaves the department to manage its own affairs, for instance, internal types of affairs. for instance, if we discover that misconduct is not brought on by a member of the public, that's brought on by an officer. an officer has violated something both major and minor, it gives us the ability to investigate that and adjudicate that. so a lot of that internal investigation, most of what we do are internal. like i said, the public wants to go to d.p.a. and the serious ones, even if they might be
investigated with the department, they have civilian oversight with the police commission. i think that's important for the city and county to know, that the department has so many checks and balances outside of the department when it comes to discipline. this model, you don't see this model everywhere, and as a matter of fact, a lot of cities don't have this model. what you'll see in the literature is this type of model is probably one of the best types of practices going, so i hope that brings public confidence in civilian oversight and our investigation. >> thanks, chief. >> vice president elias: thanks, chief. commissioner dejesus, did you have some other follow up questions? >> commissioner dejesus: well, i'll let the other commissioners go. they did put this letter in late, and there's a lot of
questions in it, but i'll let the other commissioners go. thank you. >> vice president elias: thank you. commissioner hamasaki, you're next. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you, vice president cindy elias. good evening, everybody. so i did have some questions that came up. you know, at the outset, i think what we need to do on the commission side as part of our oversight role is develop a plan for tracking and reporting. cases -- every [inaudible] from complaints to investigations to whether they're sustained there or not to the type of penalty recommended, and then, at each level of review.
you know, i'd heard the suggestion that the levels of review can act as save guards. i think the other side of that that -- that is concerning is the levels of review can also stop cases from moving forward or abas a detriment to cases moving forward because it seems like there's a lot of -- or act as a detriment to cases moving forward because it seems like there's a lot of hands touching each of these cases. in the powerpoint, i think it was slide 10 and 11, you know, there's a very fairly
substantial level of review before it even gets to the chief, and it's true that the police commission has review on the cases that are ten days or higher, but, you know, i do have concerns about the cases that perhaps aren't making it there, and maybe that's a good thing because there aren't as many serious cases, but, you know, from an oversight role, we obviously have to be concerned with the question of whether, you know, there's cases that are not -- or not resolved but filed in a way that will come to us where, you know, i think we've seen in the past things that were -- maybe appeals under ten-day
suspensions where there's been some surprise at the level of discipline imposed. so that warrants at least some level of concern. and then, the idea that we have that how many cases arise as complaints that are just not able to advance to that stage? so i'd like to develop a reporting out plan or policy so that we can understand this better by having actual facts, data, to make these decisions -- or maybe not decisions, but to sit in the oversight role, determine whether or not there's changes that need to be made, determine whether or not there's additional policy that needs to be made around the complaint
process and internal affairs. the -- you know, the other question that's been a long-term question for me that i've asked is one of the big questions that comes around transparency and accountability is, and i think we've seen it come up with the derek chauvin -- and i don't know how to say his name -- but the trial that's going on now and the blue wall of silence. >> chauvin. derek chauvin. >> commissioner hamasaki: thank you, sir. yes, i've heard there was some commenters on that in the media
lately, director henderson. to the degree i don't have any -- i've certainly heard informal things about that within this department, but nothing of substance, but i think it would be good to know to what degree are officers reporting because they're usually the best eyes on potential policy violations, misconduct, uses of force. so, you know, we obviously want to see a robust reporting where there is misconduct, and obviously, any people that believe that there's a -- some sort of code of silence that's acceptable, i think it's fair to say that in 2021, that does not belong in policing.
i don't know that i have many questions because i think most of the questions are substantive and questions of the absence of data, and so i think as commissioner dejesus suggested as well as commissioner elias, i think we need a second presentation digging into what is exactly happening within internal affairs now that we have an overview of what -- internal affairs. now that we have an overview of what internal affairs is, let's see what they're doing. i just pulled up the e-mail that commissioner dejesus sent,
as well. i'll yield my time or whatever we say. >> vice president elias: thank you. director henderson, i see that you're in the queue. i had some questions, but i'll allow you to go ahead and go first. >> thank you. i had a comment because this has come up several times in the past. a lot of questions were [inaudible] page 13 on the
slide, so i just wanted to point that out. i know we don't typically respond or address directly when we get called, but this is something that has come up in connection with wealth and disparities, so i just want to make sure that that's something that's not lost on the audience there, the m.o.u. between the police department and the district attorney's office for the criminal investigations. that's it. i just had that comment. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. i had a few questions, captain o'sullivan. i guess i'm trying to understand, when i.a. -- because it's i.a. crim who
handles the criminal side and i.d. discipline that handles the investigation. >> correct. so in most cases, unless the member had since transferred because it's -- it's sent to -- wherever that member is who's under investigation, wherever that person physically works, it's going to be his or her commanding officer that's going to make sure that investigation's done. we have to use good judgment, however, so that the investigation's going to be done most comprehensive, even though the officer has transferred, would remain with
the commander where the officer previously was and then move onto the officer's current station. >> vice president elias: so the commander that the officer, that he or she reports to, they're conducting the investigation? >> they're charged with conducting the investigation, so process wise, the directive to conduct the investigation -- for example, if i didn't go to court, the captain, the commanding officer, he or she would advance that -- the investigative paperwork from this unit, from the risk management office, specifically, the internal affairs division, admin. that captain, he or she would give it to a sergeant, and then, the sergeant is
responsible for conducting the investigation. there's a whole format, an investigative format that must be followed. that sergeant conducts the investigation, submits the investigation. the lieutenant and the captain then have to review it, and then, they advance the investigation back to the internal affairs division. once it's received here, we then, the lieutenant within the internal affairs division, she makes -- she draws a conclusion as to whether or not she agrees with the station finding of the investigation. >> vice president elias: okay. >> she can disagree with it, and from there, she can -- if there's a sustained allegation -- she said i believe it's sustained -- she then makes a recommendation with regard to discipline, and then, it goes up through the
command structure here, that happens all over again. >> vice president elias: okay. and that -- and that is true, even though the captain finds that there's no determination, the station still gets together to discuss that determination. >> absolutely. and the lieutenant may disagree. let's just say that the captain says i find that there's insufficient evidence to prove that this occurred, that it was actually proper conduct. once it comes in the risk management office, the lieutenant can disagree with that, and it goes all the way up to the chief, and ultimately, it's his decision. >> vice president elias: okay. so two questions. one, do you keep records of how many are going back to the station level, and once they're returned back to i.a., how many
result in findings, and how many result in no findings? so is there stats on that? and then two, maybe you can explain what the safeguards are because i want to piggyback on what commissioner dejesus said about investigating yourselves, right? what are the safeguards that are in place for these station level investigations to ensure that, you know, that it's a transparent fair process, and unbiased, right? >> right. okay. so i'll start there. again, you know, the process is really important to point out, which is that there are rules that have to be followed in -- in conducting an investigation, right? so as it goes through the chain of command, and we're talking about at the station level, you have a sergeant who has to work within certain parameters. that includes affording the member his or her procedural
rights, right? you have a right to have a representative. they -- the department also has the right to ask certain questions and to compel you to answer certain questions, and in the administrative world, if you fail to answer the question, you know, the discipline for that ultimately could be much, much more gray than, you know, what you might be facing if it was found that, you know, you didn't go to court. so there's quite -- you know, there's a compulsion to cooperate, if you will, right? the level of review, again, speaks to the set of eyes to say hey, first of all, was the investigation done comprehensively and was it done correctly? if -- you know, to speak to the bias part of it, we are conscientious to not put
somebody in a position where we feel -- and bias is a big word, and biases come in a lot of different forms. >> vice president elias: right. >> if we're talking of forms of bias in the sense that i might be favorable to you or, you know, i know the thought process is, you know, investigating your own -- >> vice president elias: right. >> -- we're conscientious about that. [please stand by] would cause
suggests that it wouldn't happen but i'm not suggesting that it couldn't happen. >> vice president elias: that's the bias i meant because i know we talk a lot about racial and ethnic bias, but the bias you address. but the bias i was concerned about was investigating their superior, you know, there's those unconscious bias that come out that could skew investigations and how they write reports and things like that. i just wanted to make sure
there's some mechanisms to catch those instances where unconscious bias could be present. >> vice president elias, if i could ask your question, we do most of the time this has been voluntarily, i think all of the time we've seen recusal. just like it happened in the commission, if you have some personal connection with the case before you, we set our people involved to do the right thing and recuse themselves and i can tell you that does happen in our familiar relationships or friendships that even give the appearance of bias or impropriety. we expect the person involved to recuse themselves from being apart of that case and a lot of times that does happen. so there are many cases where a person will recuse themselves from either evaluating that
case or being apart of the investigation because of that issue. >> vice president elias: that's good to know. thank you. the other question i had is on page 9, you talked about the 3304 deadline and i know the department has missed some of those deadlines in the past and i know i just asked to agendize a more substantive data. i know this is the first step to getting more information on sort of the cases you will handle and i think it would be important to report to the commission any three hundred four deadlines in the past nine months. so i think that it would be good for the commission and the public to know the number of cases that you all have or are dealing with that are at the nine-month or more mark. so if you can just include that in the next presentation because i'm sure we're going to see a lot of you, commander
o'sullivan. >> sure. can i make a comment with regards to that? >> vice president elias: yes. >> so i know director henderson and the staff often talk about that 9-month mark and we similarly have a benchmark. so internally and it's codified in unit orders is that we strive to have our internal investigation submitted to the lieutenant within a six-month timeframe, six months out from the 304 date and there's a multitude of ways we say on top of that. and then as i mentioned in my presentation, the bi-weekly meeting, that meeting includes
a spread sheet of all the investigations and among the date that is are listed there is that 6-month mark. so we're always thinking about that date and so, you know, as i'll discuss as we have followup presentations, there are of course reasons that go beyond our own six months that we look at and get into a nineth month and a tenth month. but, you know, there's a multitude of reasons why that might happen. but ultimately, the point is that's our internal benchmark and that's the thing that, you know, it's the responsibility of the leadership here to be attentive to that and more directly the lieutenant, she knows, she helps those investigators reach that part. >> vice president elias: great. that was my next question. it was on page 10 and 11. i wanted to know what's the time frame or how long are these cases taking from start
to finish? i mean, what's the average turn around time and are most cases resolved in terms of whether or not charges are going to be filed within that 6-month period you talk about or is it more realistic a 10-month period? >> i think the latter is more realistic because the -- because to have the case submitted to the lieutenant within that six or seventh month timeframe, the reality of her universe is she's not only evaluating the internal affairs, but every case that's sent over by director henderson and staff awekins, the staff has to talk about the evaluation of that case. all of us have kind of worked
around investigations in some capacities or as attorneys and some of those case files can be really expensive. you know, there could be a lot of material to go through. so there's a balancing of 3304 dates. so sometimes we need to say we've got something coming in from dpa and that's the priority so she needs to evaluate that. that being said, she does the evaluate and then it goes through the internal process here. so it's from start to the chief makes a decision, yes, it's generally in that nine to ten month period, but it's really getting the investigation done within that six or seven month period that allows for that time for the evaluation and, you know, there are times whether it's the lieutenant itself or the captain itself where i receive the case file and i send it back because i
have questions and there's the checks and balances in that. >> vice president elias: why is the lieutenant reviewing sustained cases? i know director henderson and the chief when d.p.a. comes and has a case that they file charges on, they discuss it with the chief and the chief at that point has the option to join in or determination is made as to which charging agency is going to take the case. so why is a lieutenant reviewing the findings? >> so she'll vault the case. again, we kind of spoke to how that's done, but in her evaluation, she will offer an opinion as to whether she agrees with d.p.a.'s finding and recommendation for discipline if there's a recommendation for discipline. that then goes through the process because the chief -- i think the chief is going to
chime in here is the chief through the process has the final say as to whether or not he concurs with d.p.a.'s findings as well. >> vice president elias: okay. >> that's why we do the evaluation. >> vice president elias: chief. did you want to -- >> yeah. commander o'sullivan. i'll just recap. it's the same type of review process with internal or d.p.a. case, it's the same type of review. so when it's reviewed lieutenant and then it goes through the chain of command, a recommendation comes to me and whatever that recommendation is, i have the final decision and then we go -- if we don't agree, we can go back to d.p.a. with what we agree on and what we don't agree on with an explanation of why and that's when the meeting confers between director henderson and the chief of staff it's just not us directly.
that's where that happens. so what's important about that too is the review process really in my opinion, it really makes this process better and it brings more perspective to the table. you know, the majority of them we do agree on. the ones that we don't, we now have a process where we explain what i disagree with and we had that conferred meeting and, even with that, we've made some tremendous strides and been having discussions that have been constructive and i think it improves our discipline system. but that review is really important. just to add real quickly, commissioner and commission. these internal affairs cases are the only types of cases that every case whether sustained or not will come to my level. and i can make a decision. so i can get a case that the recommendation is not sustained and i can sustain it. i can ask for a further
investigation or whatever it takes to make sure that we get to the facts and the truth of the matter but this category of cases rises to that level and they all come to me and so that's really important. this is a very important part of what we do and keeping the public's trust and confidence and it's really important to us to try to do it the right way. >> vice president elias: i appreciate that. you know, i appreciate all of your patience for all of these questions, but i really think this is a long time coming and the public was really excited about this presentation. i want to turn to page 10 and 11. and, my question with respect to page ten is and i want to make sure. one of the questions, how many people do you have in a.i. cram and a.i. edmond? i didn't know if that was part
of the risk management office which encompasses all those different units or lieutenants specifically for i.a.? >> no. so there's a lieutenant responsible for the internal affairs division. 0 admin. there's a lieutenant for the investigative services detail, criminal. we have a lieutenant that oversees the legal division. and, within legal, you know, kind of getting back to that second slide, e.i.s. is within the legal division and then the fourth lieutenant, that's the body-warn camera unit. i could just as easily call it the body warn camera division. but that was about eight teen months ago given the lift with regards to body warn camera and 1421, that's body camera and
1421 that the workload associated with that, we made the decision that that necessitated to have a lieutenant over that. that's lieutenant wallen and you've heard from her before. with regards to the administrative and the criminal side, there's a number of sergeants that work and the sergeants are the ones that do the investigations. they're the investigators. >> vice president elias: do you have regular officers or is it all just sergeants and lieutenants in those ia. crim. >> there is professional staff. we have attorneys that are assigned as well. >> vice president elias: so when you say the case in slide 10 works as assignment, the
fourth collum, cases assigned within a.i.d., you mean it's assigned to a sergeant who does the investigation. is that right? am i understanding that correctly? >> right. for purposes of that column, it kind of speaks to which unit it's assigned and then we go one step over into investigation, it's assigned personnel. that really kind of speaks to now if i were a sergeant, my lieutenant chief's going to give me a case and it's mine to run with. >> vice president elias: and then, if we can go back to the column 2, preliminary investigation where it says if it violates policy, if it's being investigated or the purview of another agency. who is conducting that review? >> so ultimately, it will be the lieutenant's decision. but i had made mention of the officer of the day and, again, that's maybe a little bit of miss numbers.
that's language used within the police department. it's technically a sergeant. it has its roots from decades ago. you know, if someone were to make a phone call, it's not necessarily going to be the lieutenant that picks up the call to say how may i help you. not that she couldn't, but that's really not her responsibility. so if someone were to call in to the internal affairs division or send that e-mail, it would be the responsibility of the designated sergeant for that particular day that he or she in addition to their regular investigative duties take to have the contact with the public input. >> vice president elias: okay. >> potential complaint. >> vice president elias: through the intake. >> through the intake and, you know, from there, they're going to walk down the hall and they're going to have a krgs with the lieutenant about it. >> vice president elias: and then i notice when we go to
column 3 assuming the intake sergeant does the intake and then allegation lacks merit or is not supported, is that same intake sergeant who makes that determination? because you go from column 2 then you go to column 3, the first box where it says allegation and it's so small so i'm trying to read it. who's making that determination? >> so the sergeants making the determination in consultation with the lieutenant. >> vice president elias: okay. >> it could be the case where, you know, let's say a member of the public called in and their complaint deals strictly with on-duty conduct, what the sergeant will do is that they'll offer to take the complaint or make the referral over to d.p.a. and, you know, they'll explain the process how d.p.a. handles allegations of misconduct relative to on-duty conduct.
so they may take the complaint, they'll offer to take the complaint and forward it to d.p.a. or if the member for whatever reason says i'm just going to call, obviously we'll allow them to do that. there's a notification process. the sergeant is by the way going to tell the lieutenant we got a phone call today and this is what i did with it. >> vice president elias: and say that the sergeant and lieutenant determined that it lacks merit. >> yeah. >> vice president elias: -- will you then go to the fourth column. so does that mean that it dies there or is -- because it doesn't seem that after you hit that box it goes to the safeguard review that you discussed before wherein the lieutenant, captain, commander, the assistant, chief, and chief review? >> well, so a couple of things can get it to that box so i just want to add. so directly below that, let's say the allegation is already
addressed, meaning it's already been assigned and investigated and it came to a conclusion. that would push it over there. we would maintain a record that that person had contacted us. but if the allegation kind of in the universe of lacks merit or there's no way to identify somebody generally speaking, you know, we really don't have a lot of that. we do receive phone calls and e-mails where, you know, there's just, you know, it may be indicative that somebody is having a mental health crisis or an issue or things of that nature and we have to -- i'm trying to say it delicately -- always follow up with it. there are things that can land that way. you know, in cases like that, there are no absolutes. but then it comes down to somebody knowing how to triage the complaint and we reach out
to somebody to give them the help they want or similarly, may be just somebody you know we have their complaint. it might be totally out the purview of the san francisco police department. we would certainly assist that person and get them in contact with the agency. >> vice president elias: you keep the statistics on those? >> keep the statistics? i'm not so sure that we do, commissioner, because i think that in terms of those types of situations, you know, we keep -- i mean, if somebody sends us an e-mail, certainly, we have that. we keep that on file. but if in terms of actually producing a number for you, i'm not so sure that we do that. >> vice president elias: and then, would you have a mechanism for keeping track of the complaints that you do receive and where they come from and like d.p.a. does, they have, they get an e-mail, if they get a call, it's a
website, they have a mechanism to track where they're getting these complaints from and what is happening, you know, how many they get and what eventually happens. do you have a mechanism for that? >> yes. absolutely. that's all codified in our a.i.m. system which is administrative investigative management system. and the totality of the relative universe is in there but on the front end of it we track how the complaint is received. >> vice president elias: and then how do you notify the party or the individual who actually files the complaint? how are they notified of the status of the case or the outcome or are they? >> they are. and actually, this is something that, you know, we talked through with chief scott and assistant chief mozure sometime in late 2019. early 2020, when we received -- if you were to make a complaint
with us, you would receive a followup letter from the internal affairs division acknowledging your complaint. it would involve an explanation of how the complaint process is conducted. it certainly makes reference to the fact that the investigation could take a period of time. so for the uninformed they may think we may have an answer for them within a week or two weeks and as we know that doesn't happen. and when the case, there's a second letter that's sent out to the complainant at the conclusion of the investigation meaning it's gone through the chief and it's been adjudicated within the appeals, we send a second letter to let the complainant know the outcome of that investigation. >> vice president elias: okay. and then, if you turn to slide 11, with respect to column number 5, whereas the chief hearing with the deputy chief. >> right.
>> vice president elias: so what happens when -- so i'm assuming that, you know, after the lieutenant, the captain, the commander, the assistant chief and the chief that reviews the findings determines the amount of discipline to oppose and the member, you know, disputes the amount of discipline and then it goes to a chief's hearing. right. >> right. >> vice president elias: and, at that point, when the chief hears the case, my understanding is that the deputy chief i guess it would be [inaudible] to let the public know what happens then. meaning does the deputy chief get to say, okay. even though the chief or all of the other lieutenant captain commander or what have you, the determination was eight days when they get to a deputy chief hearing, it turns out to be four days or a day. does that happen? and, if so, how often and what's the safeguard to ensure there's consistency especially
since you've had all these people reviewing? >> right. okay. so i'll walk everyone through that process. so as one would expect, you know, the member has, he or she has a right to appeal. >> vice president elias: right. >> let's just say it goes through the chief and the chief says there's a sustained finding and the chief's recommendation either is to issue a written reprimand or a more severe level of discipline. it could be between one and a ten-day suspension. that paperwork, that decision of the chief beyond the lieutenant of internal affairs where at that point, the members advised of that they are afforded the right to an appeal, to have what we call a chief's hearing. other agencies refer to it as a "skelly hearing" we refer to it
as a "chief's hearing." the chief's hearing them is heard by one of our five deputy chiefs. so we have five deputy chiefs. if the deputy chief under whose command the member is cannot hear the case. okay. if there's a conflict that we talked about and there could be any number of reasons for a conflict. chief referenced the recusal process, so it might be that i'm the deputy chief, but you're outside of my command but i see a reason to recuse myself, that deputy chief is afforded the opportunity to do that. what then happens is the member comes in with his or her representative and states their case as to why a multitude of things. they can disagree with the findings saying i don't think it should be sustained or they may come in like they had done previously in the internal affairs investigation interview
say, "yes, i did this, but they want to come in and they want to appeal for lesser discipline." the department is also going to put on its case. what happens after that actual, that meeting, that hearing is that the deputy chief in conjunction with the assigned attorney representing the department, he or she, the deputy chief will then come to his or her own findings and recommendations and those findings or recommendations are sent to the chief of police. at that point, chief scott concurs or does not concur with the recommendations and findings of the deputy chief. so just, again, hypothetically, the chief says this is a 5-day suspension. he or she says i agree that this case should be sustained. my recommendation is that it be
fewer suspension dates. ultimately, that goes to the chief of police and he makes the decision whether or not he concurs or does not concur with the deputy chief's recommendations. >> vice president elias: and, then the -- thank you for your patience. i have just a final question. i think, you know, when i looked at slide 10 and 11 regarding the complaint process and you did a great job of explaining what happens, but i want to turn to slide 15, the bi-weekly meetings with the r.m.o., i.a.d., and i.s.d., and one thing i am not seeing in your presentation is where d.p.a. is included in some of the determinations that have been made with respect to the cases. so i understand once d.p.a. believes that they have sustained charges, they then
send them to the department for the department to review and it goes through all of the steps that you discussed. when is d.p.a. notified of the department's ultimate determination because um, my -- let me ask it this way: what is the safeguard that is in place to ensure two things, one, d. p.a. is notified as to what the department has determined in terms of their cases that they have filed and found the sustained findings, first? and, second, what about cases in where they aren't aware of it? meaning, the department started an investigation, began the investigation, and then decides not to file charges, dvmentd p.a. still has the option to file charges and sometimes i believe that they have exercised that right, but by the time they get it, it's so late in the game because
they're running up the 3304 deadline, it's difficult for them to do their -- what they need to do which is investigate and figure out if they want to in fact file charges. what are are the safeguards that the department has put in place to ensure d.p.a. is given that opportunity and that they aren't put up against the wall when it comes to the deadline? so it's a two-part question. >> okay. i've got a three-part response. actually. so there's a few things. the first thing and we'll revisit maybe a year or six months ago when d.p.a. did a presentation with regards to -- there was some gaps in their annual report when they -- not by their own volition, they made a report but we didn't hear back from the police department. >> vice president elias: right. >> and, there is we have very good relationship with the d.p.a., very good working
relationship. so in response to that specifically because, of course, we don't want any of that to happen is we've created a share point, a document that is accessible through sharepoint where and this, we kind of got to this point in a series of meetings between the risk management office including the assistant chief and chief hawkins where any d.p.a. case that they're going to send over is sustained, that the shared document, if you will, kind of reading left to right we've been talking about these different columns is d.p.a. inserts the information. there's a bunch of -- i think sharon wu on a previous presentation gave a mock of what that document looks like. the point is d.p.a. fills out that information. we fill out and we receive the case and we filled that particular document out to --
as certain milestones occur in the processing of that particular d.p.a. case internally here in our m.o.. so we have a clerk, we have an administrative assistant who does that and then every monday afternoon after the cases that i spoke about how we present to the chief on monday mornings, it is updated by our staff every monday to let d.p.a. know this case was heard. this is what the chief decided. the chief alluded earlier some kind of part two of the three-part response is, wherever the chief ultimately disagrees with dvmentd p.a. whether that's with regards to whether an allegation and allegations are sustained as well as discipline, we -- one of our attorneys will draft a letter to d.p.a. to inform them of how the chief sees the case differently with an explanation
as to why we ultimately, the chief does not concur with the finding or the recommended discipline. inherent within that process is always the opportunity as we understand it and this is according to our own m.l. uchltd between the two agencies is the opportunity to discuss that matter. we formal. >> vice president elias: it in the form of a letter and the chief signs it. it's conferred. let's have a conversation. i think, you know, my third response, commissioner is, i think if i'm correct what you're alluding to is the situation where we may have a case, but d.p.a. doesn't know about the case and to if we ha
you have a similar case? and within that unit order which is again, we hope to have approved soon is there's followup to that. it's not just a one-time phone recall. >> vice president elias: yeah. okay. i'm glad. i want to just ensure because that was a problem in the past and i know we've been remedying the situation with respect to getting information from d.p.a. so they can fulfill their obligation so i appreciate that. and i think that is all the questions that i have. again, i want to thank everyone especially my fellow commissioners for giving me the opportunity to ask these questions because, again, this is something i've been looking forward to and i think, you know, we get a lot of questions as commissioners as to the discipline process and how it works and there's so many misconceptions with respect to this process. so i'm glad you were able to give us an overview. thank you. >> happy to do it. thank you.
>> vice president elias: and so i assume no one else has any questions? okay. sergeant reynolds, i think we're ready for public comment. >> yes. commissioner. public comment. dial star 3 if you wish to make a comment. it looks like we have one caller on the line here. >> vice president elias: thank you. >> good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi, my name is indicate hodge. i called earlier and i'm with the core team of wealth and disparities in the black community. for anti-black racist arrests. sfpd anti-black racism when it comes to use of force in traffic stops. we have concerns some of which are the following regarding slide 7 why discharge with no
injuries. how can those be investigated at the [inaudible] level. and immediately out of police purview. also regarding slide 7, what is psa. slide 13, what has the [inaudible] ever done? [inaudible] on december 2016. what findings have they had? what added accountability has there ever been? what about mario woods case? we have no answers. thank you. >> thank you, caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hello. my name is susan buckman and i am also with the corps team of wealth and disparities in the black community. i have the following concerns and questions related to the risk management presentation. regarding slide 6. the quarterly audits and
electronic communication devices covered e-mail and texts sent via department issued cellphones. what about officers personal devices and social media. having officer called a racist is obviously a red flag. do you remember the textgate scandals from a few years ago? just last september, wealth and disparities uncovered a racist, social media post and reported to the sheriff and the board of supervisors. as of the state, there has been no action or followup. looking over the entire presentation, we see there are sever bodies that conduct parallel and overlapping investigations. i.s.d., i.a.d., r.m.o., who decides which actions are correct among the many different investigations? having so many entities
involved, enables passing the buck and avoiding accountability. business as usual in san francisco. we strongly believe that we need outside, not internal investigations of all serious police misconduct. the department of police accountability should handle all investigations. particularly in the case of shootings and police complaints, the police department cannot investigate itself. the conflict of interest is clear. the d.p.a. along with the d.a. on the criminal side should be the only investigating bodies. in serious incidents, we need reliable, objective third party investigations. someone talked about trusting internal sfpd investigators to remain unbiased. think about this from the point of view from the community -- >> thank you, caller. commissioner elias, it looks
like that is the end of public comment. >> vice president elias: great. before we get into the next line item, i'd like to take a 5-minute break and then we can resume. if that's okay with fellow commissioners. >> that's great. thank you. >> vice president elias: thank you. all right. 5 minutes. director henderson us or do you have it, sarah? >> i've got the presentation. >> vice president elias: all right. can we go back on. >> absolutely. line item 6, overview of the department of police accountability's investigation process. discussion. >> vice president elias: great. director henderson. i'm sorry. ms. hopkins. >> thank you. good evening, vice president elias, chief scott, as well as members of the public. if i can please have our presentation brought up on the screen, thank you so much.
and if we can go to the first slide, second slide, please. so a little bit of background for the community especially. the d.p.a. has various aspects to its mission. the first and what we're going to focus on mostly this evening is to fairly and partially investigate san francisco police officers. d.p.a. recommends making policy recommendations regarding police practices and conducting periodic audits or reviews of the san francisco police department. next slide, please. so this shows kind of the three separate components. they often overlap because we, you know, the policy recommendations often derive from complaints that we see and
the complaints inform our audits which inform our audit. all three of those components work together to sub our mission as well as a broader oversight through our agency. next slide, please. a little bit of history that i think will clear up some of the jurisdictional questions that members of the community may have. d.p.a. was created by a city charter amendment in 1982 as a body independent from san francisco police department and we report directly to the police commission. in 2003, the number of commissioners increased from five to seven and d.p.a. director was empowered to file charges directly with the police commission and later in my presentation, i'll talk about when that applies. most recently in 2016, there was again kind of clarified and expanded d.p.a.'s jurisdiction.
we were formerly o.c.c. office of citizens and complaints. and the structure is such that the commission nominates a director, the mayor appoints with approval from the board of supervisors. in that 2016 amendment, d.p.a. was also given the jurisdiction to investigate all officer-involved shootings. prior to that, we only investigated officer-involved shootings when we got a complaint. now we're there from day one. also in 2016 is the mandate that we conduct bi-annual audits on the use of force and misconduct investigations and that gave us discretionary powers to audit other areas of importance. next slide, please. so in our investigations, we investigate complaints about on-duty officers made by
nonofficers. we investigate misconduct and neglective duty and all officer-involved shootings with injury. our performance audits and reviews look at departmentwide use of force practices and sfpd's handling of sustained misconduct. next slide, please. so i'm going to go over what our allegations are and i apologize to the commission and to the public, there was a slide missing from the presentation that got filed. so the next slide is going to be one that might not be in your packet, but it breaks down the allegations in subtypes which i know is a conversation we've had before to give more clarity as to what each of these buckets mean. generally speaking, the allegations are neglective duties, unwarranted action, conduct on becoming an officer, use of force, referrals and informational, and that gets to the situation where someone comes in and makes the
complaint, but the conduct involved isn't something that was sfpd related. so it might be a complaint about an fbi agent or the sheriff's department, in which we refer those cases to the appropriate agency. one thing i must say about allegations and i'll go through this presentation and answer some of the questions that were raised by the first public commenter by the wealth and disparities group. so allegations are formalized in the department generals 2.04 and 2.07 as well as an understanding between sfpd and d.p.a.. one of the d.o.j. recommendations in 2016 was that we have the same allegations so that they are the types of misconduct are categorized the same between the departments. most recently, in february,
this body approved a new disciplinary matrix which breaks down the new disciplinary measures relevant to each of these allegations depending on the severity and the number of mitigating factors. so that's another area where the allegations are codified, like what the universe of the allegations are. [inaudible] defines an allegation. d.p.a.'s cases what often happens is a complainant comes in and explains what happens. they don't necessarily come in and say the officer neglected his duty. like they come in and say "i had this experience, this is what happened." and then it's up to d.p.a.'s investigative tools to drill down on what category it is. so it might be a use of force and that's a little bit more clear but conduct on becoming an officer, the person might come in and say the officer was completely unprofessional, he called me x, y, and z.
so it's up to the investigative team that's up to the senior investigator and the attorney to classify the allegations. they come from the complainant, but there are also what are called d.p.a. added allegations. so, for example, if during that interaction, the complainant didn't say "i'm also complaining because the officer didn't turn on their body warn camera." but we know the officer didn't follow 1011 and didn't turn on their body camera then we add an allegation that the officer failed to comply with that policy. next slide, please. these are the subtypes within each allegation. i'm not going to read everything, but i think there's just a few that i'll highlight. so, for example, failure to activate body warn camera which i think is commonly known to be one of the biggest allegations that we sustain falls under the neglected duty. conduct unbecoming of an
officer can be racial bias and misrepresenting the truth. unwarranted action can be issuing a citation without cause or improper search or seizure. so that's kind of a lot of the fourth amendment violations fall and then use of force which can be any failure to comply with d.g.o.5.01. next slide, please. this is a chart that goes through our investigative process. so once the complaint is made and there are a number of ways that a complaint can be made. when the office was open, someone could walk in. now if someone walks to our office, they have a phone and they're able to call in, online, by mail, or often times, we do get referrals from an sfpd station because an individual makes a complaint at a station. the first step in the process is that there's an interview with the complainant that's done by our investigator.
we then gather evidence, documentary evidence, police reports, body warn cameras, all of those types of things. then other witnesses are interviewed. so if there was four people in the car, one is a complainant, we try to interview the other three people. then, officers are interviewed. and, after that, we issue what are called preliminary findings. all throughout this process, the team that i mentioned earl er is in place. so we've got an investigator, team investigator, and a consulting with either myself or chief of investigations eric salar. and i want to be careful. i'm saying final findings and preliminary findings and that's an important distinction because as i'll get to a little
later, we might say that a case is sustained if we make that finding, it's then transmitted to sfpd and goes to the process that commander sullivan talked about at length. it might ultimately go to the commission or stay with the chief, but it is embedded through their process, they are the ultimate finding of facts. next slide, please. this is just to show you what a simple complaint looks like. that's a precursor to the interview. so there's always an interview with the complainant at their convenience and get the full details from them about what happens. next slide, please. this is another track that a case can go through and if we can go to the next slide, i'll show you complaint outcomes.
so if the case deems to be suitable for mediation, meaning the complainant voluntarily wants to go through the exercise of mediation and the officer wants to mediate and the officer is eligible for mediation, then a mediation can be arranged. otherwise, the case goes to investigation. if misconduct is not confirmed and the case is closed. if misconduct is proven and discipline is recommended, it goes through the process where it goes through the chief. it gets up to 10 days of suspension and then it goes to the commission if it is greater than 10 days. i do want to be clear because i've had conversations recently where this fact was not known by some sfpd members. there's always a meet and confer with sfpd before charges are filed with the commission. so let's say there's a case where d.p.a. recommends 15
days. the process commander sullivan talked about takes place and the case is confirmed with director henderson and myself and potentially an sfpd attorney and then we discuss the case. the chief might agree with us. if that's the case, then what happens is we rate the charging document and it's signed by the chief. if the chief disagrees with us and we can't come to a consensus or an agreement, then we file the charges with the commission and it's signed by director henderson. next slide, please. so these are the findings. first of all, i do want to talk about the standard of proof. so to find something improper conduct meaning we sustain from the misconduct, that means by a preponderance of the evidence which is a more than likely standard, the d.p.a. found the
misconduct or neglect it first. other conduct is that the officer acted within the policies of sfpd. unfounded, meaning, for example, an example of that to happen means a complainant complains and there is body cam of what the complainant said that did not happen. training failure which means that the officer acted in a way that he or she didn't have proper train to go handle a situation. so that would be that the department didn't properly train the officer on what to do in a given situation. supervision failure which means that the supervisor didn't do his or her job. and policy failure. that was the comment asked by the initial public commenter. and what policy means is that sfpd did not have a policy on point to address a particular
issue. and so, you know, i'm trying to think, a recent example d.p.a. made a policy failure finding is in an instance where a person was going to execute a search warrant and only a minor was home and so we made a recommendation that created a policy about what an officer should do in that particular situation. we categorize as no findings are when a complainant withdraws the complaint. information only referral is what i was talking about when there is a complaint that involves not sfpd conduct and we refer it to the appropriate agency. information only that might be an issue where a complainant makes services and we hook them up with other services that might address their needs or if a case is mediated. next slide, please. [please stand by]
about -- all of the data will be available in that report, and one of the questions was kind of what happens, like, what is the results of a lot of these cases, and that would be contained in the discipline study through our annual report? another question that was asked was about our six-person sustained rate, and i do want to note that this is within the national standard, but all of that will be within our report and disciplinary study in detail. one other thing i want to address from the public
commenter is how long a case takes on average, and similar to what commander o'sullivan said, we're bound by the 134 one-year deadline, but the 270-day mark are about -- right now, i think we're at nine. our goal is to finish cases between the six and nine-month mark, and it depends on how many officers are involved, whether or not body-worn cameras are at play, and there's a lot of things at
play, but nine months is the absolute outline of what was bound by statute. you see here we received 799 complaints for a total of 1844 allegations? within that, 706 were neglect of duty, 560 were conduct unbecoming an officer, 354 were unwarranted action, 162 were use of force, 57 were referrals, and five were for policy failure. next slide, please. so frequency of findings in this table, 864 allegations were found to be proper conduct, 418 unfounded, 254 insufficient evidence, 187 no findings, 159 allegations were referrals. 110 were improper conduct or sustained, and from there, it goes down from mediation
withdrawn, information, and policy failure. next slide, please. this shows the improper conduct broken-down? so 70 were for neglect of duty, seven were for use of force, 15 were for unwarranted action, and conduct unbecoming an officer was 18. next, please. okay. that is the end of my presentation, and i'm happy to answer any questions from the commissioners. >> vice president elias: great. thank you so much for the presentation. director henderson, i believe you have -- >> thank you. i just wanted to highlight a couple of things from my
dealings with the public and in my role as the director. one of the things that i wanted to talk about was the language line allowing individuals to talk to the agency where english is not their first language so we can communicate with anyone, however they call, including those from the deaf and hard of hearing community. two, that there's an m.o.u. with the d.p.a. with the san francisco district attorney's office so that when and if criminal activity is uncovered, that is always referred to and given to the district attorney's office so there's no chance for activities or information that we find of criminal activity not being just followed up from the d.c.a. but also the department internally, the police department internally, and externally from the district attorney's office for criminal prosecution, as well.
these things might have been obvious, but i just wanted to stress so that members of the people know. the third thing is the numbers that go into compiling the information, not just for this report, but for the other going reports that we get monthly, quarterly, weekly, and annual. we don't have the aims system, so we do it in a variety of ways. as you see, the information that is available and that miss hawkins provided from us both from the d.p.a. complaint process, our findings, our allegations, and from conduct are all tied to specific numbers, so you can see the work that d.p.a. is doing and how we do it in context, and we can compare it to both state agencies and federal agencies for accountability and locally. the last thing i wanted to point out was that our
sustained rate at d.p.a. is higher, significantly higher than the national rate, as well. i think that is due in part to the amount of cases that d.p.a. handles on a regular basis. a lot of that is inferred from these numbers, but i just wanted to make sure that that wasn't lost on folks as they were listening to the presentation, but thank you very much. that was fantastic. thank you, director henderson. thank you, miss watkins, for your presentation. is there anyone else that wanted to say anything? >> just wanted to say thank you to sarah for that presentation. that was one of the times that we were able to use real-time
data. just looking forward to that full report when it comes out, too, and that was just a quick comment. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. all right. not seeing anyone else. thank you, director henderson and miss hawkins. can we go to the next line item, please? >> clerk: public comment regarding line item 6. if you would like to make public comment, please dial star, three. see if we have anyone wishing to make public comment. one caller. good evening, caller. you have two minutes. >> hi, there. this is david aaronson. i spoke earlier. i've from district one and a member of core teams disparity in the black community. thank you, director and miss hawkins for the presentation addressing several of our questions.
i had a couple other questions, as well. you mentioned the timing. the report was almost done, 2020 report, so i'm wondering if there was a time frame we can expect that and how that will be -- the public will be made aware of that. and director henderson referenced the m.o.u. between the d.a. and sfpd which i guess mandates how some activity is conducted, which, for example, how officers are allowed to interview -- right after a shift, allowed to leave their shift, etc. i'm just wondering, from the d.p.a., that that hampers the investigation at all, and they wonder if perhaps those should be looked into so that can improve the d.p.a.s ability to oversee investigations. thank you.
>> clerk: thank you, caller. it looks like that is the end of public comment. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. next line item? >> clerk: line item 7, discussion and possible action to adopt amended s.b. 1421 protocols. discussion and possible action. >> vice president elias: this is up for -- before us. i believe that last time it was here, there was one minor alteration to a portion of this, which i think we all discussed, and we agreed to the alteration by the chief to a continuing investigation. does anyone have any comments or questions or can i get a
motion? >> commissioner hamasaki: so moved. >> commissioner brookter: motion -- second. >> vice president elias: okay. sergeant reynolds, can we take public comment and then a vote? >> clerk: absolutely, commissioners. >> vice president elias: thank you. >> clerk: see if there's anyone for public comment. no one is waiting for public comment. would you like to take a vote? >> vice president elias: yes, ma'am. >> clerk: regarding the adoption of the amended s.b. 1421 protocol, how do you vote -- [roll call]
>> clerk: vice president elias, you have five votes. >> vice president elias: great. >> clerk: would you like to move to line item 8? >> vice president elias: yes. >> clerk: public comment related to all items below, including item 9, vote on whether to hold item 10 in closed session. >> commissioner hamasaki: are you waiting for public comment? >> vice president elias: yes. >> commissioner hamasaki: oh,
okay, because i have a motion. >> clerk: there are no callers waiting for public comment. >> commissioner hamasaki: so moved. >> vice president elias: can i get a second? >> commissioner yee: second. >> vice president elias: great. thank you. sergeant reynolds? >> clerk: line item 9, vote on whether to hold item 10 in closed session, san francisco administrative code section 67.10, action. >> vice president elias: i believe we'd ask for a motion and a second. >> clerk: and there is no one on the line for public comment. >> vice president elias: great. can we do the vote? >> clerk: vote whether to go into closed session. [roll call]