Board approves police equipment policy but removes authorization for robots to use deadly force; robot provisions sent back to committee

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Dec. 6 approved an ordinance that adopts a new Police Department equipment policy while amending the measure to prohibit the use of remotely operated robots as a deadly-force option. The board also sent the remainder of the ordinance's robot provisions back to the Rules Committee for further consideration.

The measure, which amends the Administrative Code and approves the police department's equipment policy, drew extended debate and several votes after supervisors duplicated the file to separate the contentious robot language from the rest of the measure. The board ultimately approved the policy on first reading with an amendment that states robots "will not be used as a deadly force option." The vote on that amendment was 8-3; the final vote on the amended ordinance passed with all 11 supervisors voting aye. The duplicated file containing the full robot section was referred back to committee unanimously.

Why this matters: The fight over robot use and lethal force has been a focal point for advocates, civil-liberties groups and supervisors who questioned whether authorizing remote systems to deliver lethal force is appropriate for municipal policing. The board's action preserves the broader, more detailed policy adopted under state law while removing the specific authorization that had caused the most public controversy.

Key votes and procedural steps - The board initially moved to separate two sentences in the robot-authorized-use provision and handle them in a duplicate file. That motion was rescinded and reworked after further discussion. - An amendment that replaces the disputed sentences with an explicit ban on use of robots for deadly force passed 8-3. Supervisors Dorsey, Mandelmann and Stephanie voted no on the amendment. - The ordinance as amended passed first reading unanimously, 11-0. - The duplicate file containing the full robot authorization language was amended to isolate section 1.a.5 and then sent back to the Rules Committee by an 11-0 vote for further consideration.

What supervisors said Supervisor Peskin, who carried the measure through Rules, framed the votes as an attempt to balance public safety and civil-liberties oversight while retaining required state-law provisions. Supervisor Chan said she had met with groups including the Asian Law Caucus, the ACLU and the Electronic Frontier Foundation and supported sending the robot language back to committee for more public input. Several supervisors described deep ethical concerns about permitting robots to deliver deadly force; Supervisor Mandelmann, who voted against parts of the approach, said he did not think "arming robots and giving them license to kill will make us safer."

Legal and implementation notes Deputy City Attorney Anne Pearson advised the board that removing the two sentences that had constrained robot deployment would allow the department to use robots consistent with the remainder of the policy and that the change therefore mattered substantively to the department's authority. Supervisors discussed compliance with state law (Assembly Bill 481 was mentioned in the debate) and the timing of public posting requirements.

What happens next The Rules Committee will reopen and rework the robot-authorized-use provision (section 1.a.5). The rest of the equipment policy now moves forward as the board's adopted policy on first reading; it will return for the board's second reading as required for ordinances.

Ending note The votes reflect a compromise reached by the board: the city will adopt a clarified equipment policy while pausing a final decision on the most controversial robot-authorized language so that the Rules Committee can gather further input and refine the approach.