Ethics Commission hears show‑cause case over SFPD’s ALPR map; tables decision and requests City Attorney memo

San Francisco — The Ethics Commission held a show‑cause hearing on June 13 over a Sunshine Ordinance Task Force (SOTIF) referral seeking enforcement of a SOTIF order that the San Francisco Police Department provide a compiled map showing the locations of city automated license‑plate‑reader (ALPR) cameras. After hearing arguments and testimony from the petitioner and the department, the commission voted to table further action and asked staff to obtain a legal briefing from the City Attorney clarifying the commission’s authority and remedies.

Petitioner Matthew Lutoke (listed in the referral) told the commission that SOTIF issued an order of determination on Oct. 2, 2024 and that Chief William Scott acknowledged receipt of the order in a letter dated Oct. 29, 2024. Lutoke argued Chief Scott’s written acknowledgement plus an explicit statement declining to release the map constituted a willful failure to comply with a SOTIF order. He asked the commission to treat the matter as a willful violation by a department head and begin enforcement proceedings, saying a finding of official misconduct would serve government transparency even if the commission could not impose monetary penalties.

The Police Department, represented at the hearing by Lieutenant Jonathan Ozil, countered that disclosure of a compiled ALPR site map would reveal investigative techniques, create vulnerabilities to vandalism, and endanger law enforcement personnel. The department asserted statutory exemptions and privileges, citing state and local provisions (e.g., asserted exemptions under the Administrative Code and certain Government Code and evidence code privileges that staff and the department referenced during the hearing) and said the information is sensitive security and IT infrastructure information. Lieutenant Ozil and department counsel reiterated the department’s view that the task force’s order was incorrect and that the department would withhold the map under a claimed privilege.

B. C. Matthews, the commission’s director of enforcement, explained the commission’s enforcement regulations allow a show‑cause process on SOTIF referrals but noted the Commission’s authority to impose remedies is constrained by charter and administrative code provisions. Matthews and enforcement staff confirmed the enforcement division had provided the parties with hearing briefs and exhibits in advance and that the parties had agreed to schedule the merits hearing for July 11, 2025, if the matter proceeds.

After question and answer and public comment (including a statement from a SOTIF member by phone indicating the task force found the records public and should be disclosed), commissioners discussed the statutory framework and whether a SOTIF order itself is sufficient to support a finding of official misconduct under the Commission’s enforcement rules. Commissioners expressed concern about relitigating underlying statutory exemptions and about proceeding without additional legal analysis clarifying (1) whether the Commission can treat failure to comply with a SOTIF order as a separate basis for enforcement, and (2) what remedies the Commission may lawfully order if a willful violation is found.

The commission voted unanimously to table the matter and to request a memorandum from the City Attorney that explains the commission’s authority regarding (a) whether violation of a SOTIF order may be treated as a willful Sunshine Ordinance violation, (b) the practical legal remedies available if a willful violation is found, and (c) whether superior court action by the requester would supplant or affect the Commission’s handling of the case. The motion to table also requested that staff solicit a SOTIF representative and the City Attorney to appear at the next meeting to clarify process and remedies. The vote was recorded in open session.