Board continues $700,000 civil-rights settlement after new testimony about DA conduct

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors on Feb. 1 voted unanimously to continue consideration of an ordinance authorizing a $700,000 settlement in a civil-rights lawsuit filed by DeCarri Spears, sending the matter to closed session on Feb. 8 so the full board can be briefed on new allegations arising from recent open-court testimony.

Supervisor Stephanie, who removed the item from the consent calendar, told colleagues she could not support approving the settlement “given the significant number of material questions that remain unanswered.” She cited testimony in which a district attorney investigator said she was instructed to remove a “significant amount of information” from an arrest-warrant draft and said she felt pressured to sign the affidavit, testimony the supervisor said was in the public record.

“The information I’ve based my decision on today is information in the public realm,” Supervisor Stephanie said. She described the DA investigator’s testimony as raising “extremely serious” concerns, including possible concealment of evidence and potential violations of the memorandum of understanding between the DA’s office and the San Francisco Police Department.

Deputy City Attorney John Givner told the board the City Attorney’s Office was recommending approval of the settlement at the Feb. 1 meeting. After discussion and a motion to continue the item for a closed-session briefing, the board voted 11–0 to defer the vote to Feb. 8, 2022.

Why it matters: Supervisors said the newly public testimony could bear on whether the city should authorize payment to resolve a civil case alleging excessive force and civil-rights violations. Several supervisors said they wanted the full board to receive a closed-session briefing from the City Attorney’s Office and the litigators handling the matter before voting on the settlement ordinance.

What was said: Supervisor Stephanie outlined specific passages from the court transcript, including testimony that an ADA had told the investigator to remove summaries of the 911 callers’ statements from the warrant draft. “If she didn’t conceal this evidence of domestic violence, is extremely serious,” she said, adding that the DA investigator testified she had been “pressured to sign” or face employment consequences.

Other supervisors, including Supervisor Preston and Supervisor Safaiye, said they were open to the continuance so the full board could weigh the newly surfaced information even if they remained unsure how the criminal-court testimony would affect the civil settlement’s merits. Deputy City Attorney Givner said the City Attorney’s Office would be available to brief supervisors in closed session and asked the board to consider continuing the item to Feb. 8 because of litigation deadlines.

The record: The settlement ordinance had been scheduled on the consent calendar and would have been considered for adoption without discussion. Supervisor Stephanie removed it and asked that it be continued to a closed session after she recited portions of the public court transcript she said raised questions about the DA’s conduct in a related criminal matter.

Next steps: The matter is continued to a closed session of the full board on Feb. 8, 2022, for a briefing by the City Attorney’s Office and the litigators handling the case. The board will then have discretion to vote on the settlement publicly once the closed-session briefing occurs.