[{"_1":2,"_123":-5,"_124":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87,99,111],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6697759,"mediaKeyId","2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef","parentId",2303422,"title","Commission requests fuller review after pursuit ended in parklet collision that injured six","audioSeconds",300,"startMs",900000,"endMs",1200000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef&start=900&end=1200","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef/thumbnail_900000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6697759/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Commission-requests-fuller-review-after-pursuit-ended-in-parklet-collision-that-injured-six","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6697759-a22388ddec61a38adcbd617c71494d09/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199925&Signature=SaF1W14ikGEUonp3fsZhQLXlcy2Nw~0RENBgcDHcFwWGGcxsVzwr-~~dkBJNI7QPfCfDHfiamo5FBxQ~Pjrxg4tmuD-U2wXv-EYYgn2aIFDoHP4VGp5Vq9waGks23ljhypNcXScdvSqQykQ2OdUgXoze0no2IR6Oiou~5HnqAgmoDS5-dNWtXwRQIXDLFdeKL0HSqcVgD9niMIJov~VNp4oPIbKZ1XsIpz4hgojiUwJdSvkwUK16uYWGA9RadRDGBGq4iex0dkOaAkUvYBUmOUxwdIdRxJweKuddehOO5aMj49A4VYhKI5GH5ank0776PUCOvwikvMTOsfGcDO9k8g__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of San Francisco","date","2025-02-12T00:00:00Z","article","San Francisco — Commissioners on the San Francisco Police Commission asked the police department on Feb. 12 to prepare a fuller review after a vehicle pursuit on Feb. 6 ended when the fleeing vehicle struck an occupied parklet at Fourth Street and Van Ness, injuring six people.

Chief William Scott delivered the weekly chief’s report and said the department is seeing an overall reduction in Part I crimes but that recent pursuits and a slight year-to-date increase in shooting incidents prompted concern. “We will do everything we can to make sure that we weigh the risk of pursuits,” Chief Scott said, adding that the department is reviewing the Feb. 6 pursuit to determine whether officers acted within department policy.

The pursuit began after an automated license-plate reader (ALPR) flagged a vehicle wanted in connection with felony grand theft in Berkeley, according to Scott. Officers attempted a stop; the driver fled and the pursuit terminated in South Van Ness when the suspect vehicle collided with a parklet. Six people were injured: two sustained serious but non-life-threatening injuries and four sustained minor injuries, Scott said. The officers involved were not injured.

Commissioners pressed for more factual detail and a broader agenda review. Commissioner Mattben Yanez asked the department to bring a full agenda item that would include an assessment of pursuits that would not have been permitted under the department’s pre-Prop E policy but are now permitted under the changes approved by voters. “Once more facts are known I’ve asked that this be calendared for a full agenda item,” Yanez said.

Vice President Carter Overstone and others also asked for clarity on supervisory oversight during the pursuit and whether a supervisor monitoring the pursuit exercised the authority to discontinue it. Chief Scott said supervisors review pursuits and that “those are the things that will be taken into consideration,” but that he did not yet have a conclusion about the Feb. 6 incident.

The commission also discussed parallel reviews. Scott noted the department has adopted a Serious Incident Review Board (SIRB) policy; once implemented that board will examine incidents such as the Feb. 6 pursuit. Commissioners requested the chief provide a timeline showing whether the incident would fall under the SIRB as currently implemented.

Commissioners asked several operational follow-ups that the department agreed to provide: the supervisor monitoring logs and decision points for the Feb. 6 pursuit; the precise pursuit start and termination times as recorded on radio and CAD logs; whether the supervisory discontinuation authority was used or considered; and any materials the Police Department has provided to — or received from — the Board of Supervisors or other offices about the incident.

The discussion also covered tools and alternatives to high-speed pursuit. Chief Scott said the department is piloting StarChase (a GPS tagging system) and has deployed it a few times with some success, following a site visit to Alameda County’s program. Scott also described the department’s drone program: six drones were currently in the field and the department planned purchases to place field drone kits at district stations (22 kits planned), but the department does not yet have high‑speed pursuit-capable drones or an FAA waiver for routine beyond‑visual‑line‑of‑sight operations. He said a waiver application for beyond‑visual‑line‑of‑sight is in progress.

Commissioners and the chief discussed the trade-offs created by changes voters approved in Proposition E. Scott said the voters set a policy; that policy and its balance of public safety and risk must be respected while the department and commission monitor outcomes. “We have to be very clear with our officers and the public of what this is, what the risks are,” Scott said.

Why it matters: The pursuit resulted in injuries to bystanders and raised questions about whether recent policy changes and available technologies are producing safer outcomes for the public and officers. Commissioners requested a follow-up agenda item specifically addressing the Feb. 6 pursuit, including the supervisor’s monitoring logs and an assessment of whether the revised pursuit policy is having the intended effect across similar incidents.

The commission did not make a formal policy change during this meeting; instead, it requested documentation and a deeper review to appear on a future agenda.

Details and context: Chief Scott reported the department’s weekly crime trends: a 36% overall reduction in Part I crimes for the week cited, driven by an approximately 53% reduction in car burglaries compared with last year, a 39% reduction in property crimes, and a smaller (about 13%) reduction in violent crimes. Scott also reported 105 gun seizures year to date compared with 93 the previous year; 13 of the 105 were described as “ghost guns.” Homicides year to date were 1 compared with 3 at the same time last year, a small‑number change Scott cautioned should not be overinterpreted.

StarChase and drones: The department said StarChase has been piloted locally and was used a small number of times. The drone program is expanding: Scott said 50–58 officers had been trained to FAA Part 107 standards, six drones were in the field at the time of the meeting and 22 field kits were budgeted for district stations. Scott said the department does not yet have the fast, long‑range drones that can routinely keep pace with high‑speed vehicle pursuits.

Next steps: Commissioners asked the chief to provide the commission with a detailed agenda item on the Feb. 6 pursuit, including supervisory logs, timelines, and any materials provided to the Board of Supervisors or other elected offices; the commission also requested documentation on the SIRB implementation timeline and on StarChase and drone pilots.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City of San Francisco - Video Open Video Only in Windows Media Player - Feb 12, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","After the SFPD chief reported declines in several crime categories, commissioners pressed for a formal review of a Feb. 6 vehicle pursuit that ended when a suspect vehicle crashed into a parklet and injured six people.","taxTitle","San Francisco City, San Francisco County, California","taxId",5751,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6697740,"Votes at a glance: outcomes from the Feb. 12 San Francisco Police Commission meeting",20,6270000,6290000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef&start=6270&end=6290","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef/thumbnail_6270000.jpg","/articles/6697740/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Votes-at-a-glance-outcomes-from-the-Feb-12-San-Francisco-Police-Commission-meeting","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6697740-dea4df6e7fe720a897c224c351be9e0e/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199925&Signature=bwJbmKP2PaJ~PrgDDdmmu3QgVNRjvCIX0j74Cq9ylTGAPARZ-htl6w27qjvhkEBA0VZz7v2tqsWlKtor-D8rM0GUMo5fKGCfnm0iV~APq-xNe8zY8vE9Ij20eAzown7NuCqELJwgh57b3gPNN177tvsrDslUYDk4sWa3yoransZarafgSIZlk3dmvTYGEb~C8WaA7mfOPKYojEjmkRBvRpb6xCLGaW0CUQ6-iLL-Rm17DXYfnTbS~5jWAe6tp1BE2gh8AUc9-vGcUFSqYmnCe5LTqw-~ln2FchD2ls-9N7n9NksrSNxgiX6VgZIiMnJ3bv0AFQbizURBGwIU2PLWUw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Francisco — The Police Commission recorded several formal motions on Feb. 12, 2025. The body took action on the consent calendar, sent a draft body‑worn camera DGO to meet‑and‑confer, approved a diplomatic‑immunity order for labor negotiation, forwarded the department’s budget to the mayor’s office for review and approved the department’s 2025 community working‑group list. Below are the motions, vote tallies and supporting details as recorded in the meeting minutes.

Votes and motions (selected):

1) Consent calendar — Receive and file SFPD and DPA quarterly and monthly reports
- Motion: “Receive and file” the consent calendar (items listed: SFPD and DPA document protocol report, fourth quarter 2024; SFPD traffic enforcement plan; SB 1421 and SB 16 monthly reports for January 2025).
- Mover/Second: motion and second taken on the record (names not specified in the audio roll call line).
- Vote record: Commissioner Clay — yes; Commissioner Benedicto — yes; Commissioner Yanez — yes; Commissioner Yee — yes; Vice President Carter Overstone — yes; President Elias — yes.
- Tally: 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain — Outcome: approved (receive and file).

2) DGO 10.11 (Body‑Worn Cameras) — Approve to send to meet‑and‑confer
- Motion: Adopt revisions to DGO 10.11 and send to affected bargaining units for meet‑and‑confer.
- Mover/Second: not specified on the public audio where the short statements occurred.
- Vote record (roll call): Commissioner Clay — yes; Commissioner Benedicto — yes; Commissioner Yanez — yes; Commissioner Yee — yes; Vice President Carter Overstone — yes; President Elias — yes.
- Tally: 6 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain — Outcome: approved to proceed to meet‑and‑confer.
- Notes: The DGO includes narrowed deactivation exemptions, a requirement that a member ordering a tactical deactivation record resulting orders on BWC when practicable, strengthened initial interview language, and airport‑specific provisions.

3) Department General Order 5.13 (Diplomatic Immunity) — Approve to send to meet‑and‑confer
- Motion: Approve DGO 5.13 (Diplomatic Immunity) for use in meet‑and‑confer with the affected bargaining units as required by law.
- Mover: Commissioner Clay (motion stated by chair, as recorded); Second: provided on the record (noted as second in audio).
- Vote record (roll call): Commissioner Clay — yes; Commissioner Benedicto — yes; Commissioner Yanez — yes; Vice President Carter Overstone — yes.
- Tally: 4 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain — Outcome: approved to proceed to meet‑and‑confer.
- Notes: The revised order reorganizes procedures, clarifies immunity levels and adds a contact path to confirm diplomatic immunity status; meeting participants discussed whether a specific federal contact number should appear in the DGO and noted alternatives if lists change.

4) SFPD FY26–27 budget (department submission to mayor) — Motion to advance department’s proposed budget materials
- Motion: Forward SFPD’s proposed FY26–27 budget materials to the mayor’s office for consideration and further processing.
- Mover: Commissioner Dean Benedicto (motion recorded); Second: recorded on the audio (noted as second).
- Vote record (roll call): Commissioner Clay — yes; Commissioner Benedicto — yes; Commissioner Yanez — yes; Commissioner Yee — yes; Vice President Carter Overstone — yes.
- Tally: 5 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain — Outcome: motion carried to forward materials to mayor.
- Notes: Presentation covered personnel costs (85% of general fund budget), fleet replacement needs, proposed records/evidence ecosystem RFP and overtime projections; department will submit formal package to the mayor on schedule.

5) Working‑group plan for calendar year 2025 — Approve proposed list
- Motion: Approve SFPD’s proposed working‑group list for calendar year 2025 (DGO 6.09 domestic violence and DGO 5.23 interactions with deaf and hard‑of‑hearing individuals).
- Mover/Second: recorded on the audio (mover recorded; second recorded).
- Vote record (roll call): Commissioner Clay — yes; Commissioner Benedicto — yes; Commissioner Yanez — yes; Vice President Carter Overstone — yes.
- Tally: 4 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain — Outcome: approved.
- Notes: DPA expressed support and the department plans targeted outreach to underrepresented communities.

6) Closed‑session disclosure vote
- Motion: Not to disclose any portion of the closed‑session discussion held under the specified administrative code section.
- Vote record (roll call): Commissioner Clay — yes; Commissioner Benedicto — yes; Commissioner Yanez — yes; Vice President Carter Overstone — yes.
- Tally: 4 yes, 0 no, 0 abstain — Outcome: no disclosure.

Provenance (evidence excerpts from the meeting record):
- Consent calendar motion and roll call: “Motion to receive and file. Second.” … “You have 6 yeses.”
- DGO 10.11 motion and vote: “Can I get a motion? So moved. I move for the adopted.” … “You have 6 yeses.”
- DGO 5.13 motion and vote: “I'll make a motion to approve this DGO, for use in meeting conferring subject to our labor relations resolution.” … “You have 4 yeses.”
- Budget motion and vote: “I will make a motion to do that.” … “You have 5 yeses.”
- Working‑group motion and vote: “I'll make a motion to approve the community working group proposal.” … “You have 4 yeses.”

Notes on attribution and missing details: Where the public audio did not clearly identify the mover or seconder of a motion, the record lists the motion language and the roll‑call vote as read aloud at the meeting; mover/second names are recorded in some cases but not always audible. The articles in this package reflect the recorded roll‑call votes and the vote tallies announced on the record.","Summary of formal motions and recorded outcomes from the San Francisco Police Commission meeting on Feb. 12, 2025, including DGO actions, consent calendar, and budget referral.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6697745,"Commission approves two community working groups for 2025 to update domestic violence and deaf/hard‑of‑hearing policies",1035,8955000,9990000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef&start=8955&end=9990","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef/thumbnail_8955000.jpg","/articles/6697745/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Commission-approves-two-community-working-groups-for-2025-to-update-domestic-violence-and-deafhardofhearing-policies","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6697745-a2d52959441b136df6d2ee3abf41360a/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199925&Signature=bmLPwEcODzZz892QgKAshUAi7wAulx3Q3Z9xsarEkdLtIeDzfDQrca8X~pQbAA~5Ii-p~eaW2BwwgfL8xJWb1sa1irvb-7dsys6aulQuMh-DY6CaGlyKHF0kr~8kv0Q7h~jNgzfRyQrqYgUHtFhXIdnR9tK5M3bcATV8599hXEJdyYdOIHVe~ARH2orkAGUOlS3l9Th6xuQ-d7tlv~luK6Ouh7ShzXA6SSFDtQhW9VN4lJ2XOKRPVx2axjVftlV-e1bbiAZzxKGmUyNGt28uiRdaNtFOFRlyilhkFfabH4uHJ5Y0zXN89Mw29jAO45I3LP9KUXdmD9hDDNBZ5fDDrg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Francisco — The San Francisco Police Commission approved the department’s proposal to convene two community working groups in 2025: one to update guidance on domestic violence (DGO 6.09) and one on interactions with deaf and hard‑of‑hearing individuals (DGO 5.23).

Hitesh, the department’s community working group coordinator, summarized the working‑group unit’s achievements over the preceding year and presented the department’s rationale for selecting the two DGOs for full working‑group review. He said the department had completed other working groups more quickly than the allotted DGO 3.01 timeframe and that the domestic‑violence DGO would aim both to align policy with recent legal changes and to surface recommendations useful for a separate domestic‑violence manual update.

The proposed domestic‑violence working group will aim to involve victims’ advocates, survivors, SFPD members and community groups, and the department said it expects the working group to identify operational and training gaps as well as possible manual updates. For DGO 5.23, the department said it would engage disability‑rights advocates, interpreters and technology experts to evaluate policy, training and relevant technologies that could assist officers and deaf or hard‑of‑hearing community members.

Jermaine Jones of the Department of Police Accountability (DPA) told the commission DPA supports the two working groups and praised the working‑group unit’s process and outreach in recent DGOs. Commissioners emphasized outreach to community members who do not typically participate in SFPD policy development; the department said it had a new staff member, Emily Quiliza, focused on expanding engagement with underrepresented neighborhoods and stakeholders.

Why it matters: Proposition E and the department’s own rulemaking process require transparent public input on policing policy. Commissioners and staff said community engagement for these two DGOs will help ensure operational policy aligns with survivor needs and accessibility expectations for people who are deaf or hard of hearing.

Next steps: The commission approved the working‑group list and the department plans to schedule meetings, circulate working‑group materials, and report back to the commission as the groups complete their drafts.","SFPD proposed a calendar of DGO reviews and the commission approved working groups for DGO 6.09 (domestic violence) and DGO 5.23 (interactions with deaf and hard‑of‑hearing individuals). Department staff said the groups will engage survivors, advocates and subject‑matter experts and feed improvements into policy and operational manuals.",{"_33":100,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":101,"_41":102,"_43":103,"_45":104,"_47":105,"_49":106,"_51":107,"_53":108,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":109,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":110,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6697748,"SFPD presents FY26–27 budget priorities; department emphasizes personnel costs, aging fleet and technology plan",2790,3720000,6510000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef&start=3720&end=6510","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef/thumbnail_3720000.jpg","/articles/6697748/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/SFPD-presents-FY2627-budget-priorities-department-emphasizes-personnel-costs-aging-fleet-and-technology-plan","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6697748-3b800c482efcafb57a485668b054a9b8/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199925&Signature=ZHw4~kpr1xGg1ujzv0iE-f3fAcL3~Xha8LAwFp3H7xphYozz6b0LFC7pizSJBTE0c5kSqaQotbndF~YTFFIXoCLueK7wI2BiYYaFSSwt-CvmGQhXIrqQunD2IM6YucBNzw5oLg3QqXF3TaM1AdJx22dyo8fFsT2MzR8eEBRevm6Og2pyQH2vhjYwa-rM89wyOCng~OcTluwfJPaMV28FuEKr6vL5ScO89tvzg4zhJRGbflqvUGM4yhWutiFWl4mTMov1Oq5IEfb3KBgfinhNbpOJaFVdpSCy-lcexV2~D2u6DP0RfRs6UcBTVktbuOd-VxYZlwsAVGT4tVnXhz8BEw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Francisco — San Francisco Police Department officials presented the department’s general‑fund budget outlook for fiscal years 2025–26 and 2026–27 on Feb. 12, highlighting that personnel costs make up about 85% of the general‑fund budget and flagging an aging vehicle fleet and planned investments in records and evidence systems.

Kimmy Wu, the SFPD chief financial officer, told the commission the department’s general‑fund budget was approximately $737 million (excluding the airport bureau) with sworn payroll at about $582 million and civilian payroll near $44 million. Wu said personnel costs are the dominant variable in the budget and that the department’s wish list totaled roughly $31 million across 180 requests submitted by command staff.

The presentation noted vehicle‑replacement shortfalls: the fleet’s average age was about 13 years, with 52% of vehicles at least 10 years old and 25% at least 20 years old. The department reported an increase in vehicle maintenance costs and a 20‑year replacement plan that officials described as not aligned with industry best practice (typically a five‑year replacement cycle).

Chief William Scott and department technology staff also discussed a multi‑component “ecosystem” procurement to replace the department’s legacy records management system and integrate digital and video evidence management and a real‑time crime center platform. Will Sanson Mosher, the department technology director, said the department terminated a contract with a records vendor after identifying dozens of unresolved issues and is drafting a new RFP that will seek a more integrated solution; the department expects to post the new procurement in mid‑March with a goal of live deployment in 2026 or early 2027.

Commissioners pressed the department on overtime controls after a recent city audit raised concerns about internal controls. Chief Scott said salary‑savings from sworn vacancies are used to fund overtime backfill and that the department projects salary savings of roughly $61 million to help fund overtime costs. He said the annual overtime baseline for the department was about $41 million for the current year and that improvements in controls could generate savings but not eliminate the need for overtime to cover staffing gaps.

Commissioners also questioned expense trade‑offs, including training time away from patrol and costs of programs such as “Sojourn” training. Some commissioners sought concrete cost figures and outcome measures for out‑of‑town training or multi‑day training events so the commission can evaluate public‑safety effects relative to the expense.

Why it matters: The department’s budget is advisory to the mayor and Board of Supervisors, but the commission’s review highlights competing priorities: recruiting and retaining sworn personnel, replacing an aging fleet, investing in new records and evidence technology to reduce duplicative officer work, and improving oversight and training.

Next steps: The department will submit a formal budget package to the mayor; the mayor’s office will prepare a balanced budget to send to the Board of Supervisors by May 31. Commissioners voted at the meeting to forward the department’s proposed budget materials to the mayor’s office for consideration and continued review.

Additional context: The presentation described additional cost drivers: software licensing and central shop maintenance for vehicles increased notably; the department reported a historic high of vehicle purchases in one year but only 18 replacements in the most recent year cited. IT modernization and integrated evidence workflows were described as essential to reduce duplicative officer workload and improve clearance rates, the department said.","SFPD officials presented a general‑fund budget proposal that emphasizes personnel (85% of the general‑fund budget), growing maintenance costs for an aged fleet, and a multi‑year plan for a new records and evidence ecosystem; commissioners raised questions about overtime controls, fleet replacement and training costs.",{"_33":112,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":113,"_41":114,"_43":115,"_45":116,"_47":117,"_49":118,"_51":119,"_53":120,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":121,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":122,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6697754,"Police commission advances revised body‑worn camera policy to meet‑and‑confer after months of negotiation",1691,4279000,5970000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef&start=4279&end=5970","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2303422-047a13959e48f853756fda7d6b8c16ef/thumbnail_4279000.jpg","/articles/6697754/San-Francisco-City/San-Francisco-County/California/Police-commission-advances-revised-bodyworn-camera-policy-to-meetandconfer-after-months-of-negotiation","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6697754-2503a1fd07b1e22c28bffd9b65914903/orig.mp4?Expires=1771199925&Signature=NHNRp7D3DDXPNfXX7uFxxciUzWAcbCa7Uh4G41U4cHy3jvEQsQUOw~vtAkB9B23~E5G0bDiRBNm2zF9baHCn4xTdaV87UkJcmkTSr2apUaa700USMnyaPWPOblZ5Lp-2rT6mPJ0ZCWWY8bnkvcy~q7up5cxJBczw7WJasNS6uJJXyd91gLryU~IdoNooCdmhGz6kTTuRlftidVkZb6wR3eO8XyX8tEFGooRjX6CyUsISv5zGQjW9jg3B4p26XTF1Crn7dY6hX5DtDQKgAf9DMkTUU16fAN~nytLi9q91dLf-vM8NNjLOTkw7viZdNqvevfI49bO6XSvs8YUkyAIQMg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","San Francisco — The San Francisco Police Commission on Feb. 12 voted to send to meet‑and‑confer the San Francisco Police Department’s revised Department General Order (DGO) 10.11 governing body‑worn cameras (BWCs), after several months of working‑group meetings and negotiated language changes.

Commissioner Dean Benedicto, who led the commission’s working‑group process on the DGO, described the final edits and thanked working‑group participants from the Bar Association, the public defender’s office, community organizations and department staff. “I’m immensely proud of the DGO we have in front of us,” Benedicto said.

Key changes narrowed the department’s proposed deactivation exemptions to a limited set of “major and critical incidents” and added a requirement that the member ordering a tactical deactivation must record the resulting orders on BWC once safe to do so. The DGO also adds a specific circumstance requiring activation when an on‑scene member issues commands or briefings during an active incident — language the department and commissioners said is intended to capture in‑field direction given by supervisors or command staff.

Chief William Scott and department attorneys said the revisions reflect a compromise: better documentation of tactical direction while preserving narrowly defined deactivation authority for safety and tactical reasons. Scott described the exemptions as “a very small universe” of incidents such as riots, explosive devices, active‑attacker incidents, hostages/barricaded suspects, officer‑involved shootings, officers shot or critically injured, and verified child abductions.

The DGO contains separate airport‑bureau provisions and requires a distinct, commission‑approved agreement for how BWCs and footage will be used and shared at San Francisco International Airport; where the department’s airport order conflicts with federal law or airport policy, the more restrictive provision will govern.

The DGO also tightens language on lineups and interviews: members or PSAs involved in a covered incident may not review BWC footage before being interviewed unless first authorized by the assigned criminal investigator, and initial member interviews must now “describe the actions” and “the member’s perceptions, including what they saw, heard, felt, believed, and experienced,” replacing a prior instruction to “summarize.”

DPA and outside stakeholders: Jermaine Jones of the Department of Police Accountability (DPA), Brian Cox of the Public Defender’s Office and Julie Tron of the Bar Association all spoke during public comment and in working‑group sessions. Cox thanked commissioners and staff for public negotiation and dialogue. Tron urged ongoing attention to best practices and redaction processes for discovery and prosecution.

Why it matters: The order governs when officers must record and when footage may be deactivated — both sensitive issues for officer safety, investigative integrity and public transparency. The commission and department said the compromise narrows deactivation authority while strengthening documentation of on‑scene command decisions and initial member statements.

What the vote does next: The commission approved sending DGO 10.11 to the department’s bargaining units for meet‑and‑confer as required by labor law; further changes could follow during the bargaining process. The meeting record shows the commission approved the motion to send the order to meet‑and‑confer; materials and additional edits will be part of the department’s ongoing labor and public process.

Looking ahead: Commissioners said they will continue to monitor implementation, including whether the department’s BWC unit redacts footage after incidents and how the airport‑specific agreement is finalized and presented to the commission.","After months of working‑group meetings and edits, the commission approved sending the revised Department General Order 10.11 (body‑worn cameras) to meet‑and‑confer. The order narrows deactivation exemptions, requires recording of on‑scene commands, adds airport‑specific provisions and tightens initial interview language.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Commission requests fuller review after pursuit ended in parklet collision that injured six

Votes at a glance: outcomes from the Feb. 12 San Francisco Police Commission meeting

Commission approves two community working groups for 2025 to update domestic violence and deaf/hard‑of‑hearing policies

SFPD presents FY26–27 budget priorities; department emphasizes personnel costs, aging fleet and technology plan

Police commission advances revised body‑worn camera policy to meet‑and‑confer after months of negotiation