San Francisco Police Commission approves taser adoption but delays use until force-policy is entrenched

The San Francisco Police Commission voted 4–3 on Friday to permit the San Francisco Police Department to equip officers with conducted energy devices, commonly known as tasers, but the commission amended the approval to prevent any deployment until the department—s revised use-of-force policy has been in effect for two years.

Commissioner Sonia Malera moved the measure and it was seconded and later amended by Commissioner Hirsch to include the two-year delay tied to DGO 5.01. The final roll call recorded Mazuko, Marshall, Malera and Hirsch voting yes and De Jesus, Aung Hing and Turman voting no.

"I strongly believe as the chief of police of the city of San Francisco that our officers need CEDs or TASERS as that option to reduce injuries," Chief William Scott told the commission earlier in the evening. "These are less lethal tools that have the ability to bring these type of situations to a relatively safe conclusion while minimizing the use of additional force or a higher level of force." Chief Scott also acknowledged the devices— documented disproportionate use against people of color and people with mental health issues and said SFPD would couple any deployment with policy, training and oversight.

Commissioners and experts spent hours testing competing claims about safety and efficacy. Epidemiologist Dr. David S. (Dr. Sang) told the commission that large, real-world studies found a short-term increase in sudden in-custody deaths and a rise in officer-involved shootings in the first year after departments adopted CEDs. "There—s a definitive risk for sudden death," he said, and urged safeguards including immediate access to automated external defibrillators and a transparent registry of deployments to allow independent study.

Supporters—including witnesses from other departments and vendors—argued tasers provide an intermediate option that can reduce injuries and officer days lost to assault. Sergeant Joe Vigil of the Richmond Police Department described his agency—s training, reporting and multi-level review processes and said his department had used presentation or activation to gain compliance in many incidents.

A budget analysis presented at the hearing estimated initial equipment costs at roughly $2,300 per unit (including holster, cartridges and a four-year warranty) and projected a one-time equipment cost in the low millions if issued only to crisis-intervention-trained officers; costs would rise if CEDs were issued departmentwide. The report also flagged other implementation expenses—testing equipment, AEDs, training, data storage and potential litigation—that could not be fully quantified without an implementation plan.

The commission—s amendment requires DGO 5.01 to remain in effect for two years before deployment, reflecting commissioners— stated desire to ensure the department—s de-escalation and oversight reforms deepen before a new force option is used in the field. President Turman underscored that the vote was not a rubber stamp: "We are making strides on use-of-force policy. Let us not turn our back on that," he said.

Next steps: the department was directed to finalize implementing details and return to the commission. Because the vote included a delay linked to the DGO timetable, actual deployments are barred by the amended motion until the DGO 5.01 milestone is met.