Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission discusses revised plainclothes/undercover DGO; vote deferred after public‑defender and DPA input
Summary
The Police Commission discussed proposed revisions to DGO 5.08 on plainclothes and undercover officers. Presenters summarized changes; commissioners asked questions about vehicle stops, crowd‑control language and deviation authority. The item was not voted on and will return after further review.
Lieutenant David Goff of SFPD briefed the Police Commission on proposed revisions to Department General Order 5.08 governing plainclothes, nonuniformed and undercover officers. The commission discussed the policy at length on Oct. 1 and deferred a vote to allow time to review a letter from the Public Defender's Office and substantive edits proposed by the Department of Police Accountability.
Lieutenant Goff, identified as a Field Operations Bureau lieutenant and subject‑matter expert on the revision effort, told commissioners the DGO was last updated in 1996 and that the department resumed revision work in early 2025. He outlined major changes: expanding definitions, separating enforcement procedures for plainclothes versus undercover operations, guidance for when plainclothes officers may or may not initiate vehicle stops, new sections on exposing firearms, complying with uniformed officers, out‑of‑county operations and duties of supervisors.
Commissioners pressed the department on several points. Vice President Benediktou and Commissioner Leung asked why the draft uses "should not" rather than the stronger phrasing "shall not" in the crowd‑control arrest context and whether that change reflected added exceptions (for example, danger to life or great bodily injury). Commissioners also questioned vehicle‑stop language that requires plainclothes members to request a marked backup “as soon as practical,” asking why the prior language required that “immediately.” Commissioners suggested clarifying whether particular provisions apply specifically to nonuniform/plainclothes members rather than all members.
Lieutenant Goff said the department's intent was to ensure officer and public safety and that some language changes reflected operational realities and exceptions. Commissioners noted they had received a letter from the Public Defender public‑integrity unit that arrived that day and that DPA had suggested substantive edits; Commissioner Elias, the assigned commissioner for this DGO, was absent due to illness. Several commissioners said it would be prudent to review the incoming materials and DPA suggestions before voting.
The commission did not move to adopt the DGO at the Oct. 1 meeting and directed staff to coordinate with DPA and review the Public Defender's letter; the item will return to the commission for further consideration.
