Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Plainclothes Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses revisions to plainclothes and undercover policy; no vote taken
Summary
Commissioners questioned exceptions and supervisory deviation language in proposed revisions to DGO 5.08 for plainclothes, non‑uniform and undercover officers; department and DPA edits and a public defender letter will return before a vote.
The San Francisco Police Commission on Oct. 1 discussed but did not vote on proposed revisions to Department General Order 5.08, which governs plainclothes, non‑uniform and undercover officers.
Lieutenant David Goff, the department’s subject‑matter lead, told the commission the DGO — last updated in 1996 — was revised starting in 2025 and the department received 49 public comments during the public review process. The draft expands definitions, clarifies enforcement procedures, provides guidance on vehicle stops and firearm exposure, and sets duties for supervisors. It also renames the order to explicitly include plainclothes and undercover officers.
Commissioners asked specific questions on three points:
- Crowd‑control arrests: Commissioners raised why the draft uses a "should not" formulation rather than "shall not" for plainclothes arrests in crowd control situations, noting prior commission language used "shall not" while allowing exceptions when there is a danger to life or great bodily injury. Lieutenant Goff said the presence of exceptions typically requires the less‑mandatory formulation.
- Vehicle stop procedure: The draft requires members initiating vehicle stops to request a marked backup unit “as soon as practical,” replacing earlier language requiring it “immediately.” The department said officers’ priority is scene safety and that requesting a marked unit follows ensuring that safety.
- Deviation authority: The draft permits Deputy Chiefs to approve deviations from the DGO for specific units. Commissioners expressed concern that explicit deviation language in one DGO but not others might send a mixed message and asked the department to review whether similar deviation clauses appear elsewhere.
Vice President Benediktou and several commissioners noted the commission received a letter from the public integrity unit of the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office the day of the meeting and that DPA had submitted substantive edits. The commission did not take a vote; commissioners said the item should return for a future meeting after the department reviews the public defender’s letter and coordinates further with DPA.
Why it matters
DGO 5.08 sets conduct and safety requirements for plainclothes and undercover operations citywide. Commission concerns focused on whether the proposed language preserves prior limits on plainclothes involvement in crowd control, whether vehicle‑stop procedures adequately protect safety, and how exception authority is handled.
What’s next
The department will consider the public defender’s letter and DPA edits; the commission’s assigned commissioner (Commissioner Elias) is ill and the item will be scheduled for further discussion and possible vote at a later meeting.
