Commission hears broad public support for stakeholder 'version 2a' of use-of-force policy; no final vote

San Francisco — The Police Commission on Monday heard a series of presentations and extended public comment on a rewrite of Department General Order 5.01, the San Francisco Police Department’s use-of-force policy, but took no final vote.

Acting Chief Tony Chaplin told the commission the department sought public input as it replaces a policy more than two decades old. Deputy Chief Garrett Tom and Captain Jack Hart summarized how staff consolidated three earlier general orders into two draft policies and how a third stakeholder-edited document (called "version 2a") was developed by civil-rights groups, the Bar Association and other community representatives.

Stakeholders, including the Office of Citizen Complaints’ Samara Marion and representatives from the ACLU, the Blue Ribbon Panel and the Coalition on Homelessness, told the commission that version 2a raises the standard above the Supreme Court’s Graham v. Connor reasonableness test and uses stricter language to guide officer training and accountability. "Words do make a difference," Marion said, urging use of "shall," "immediate" and a "minimal force" standard so training and discipline follow the policy.

The drafts differ on several technical and practical points. Captain Hart said version 1 consolidates the three previous general orders and retains language describing proportionality and a list of additional factors for reasonableness (for example, number of officers vs. subjects, relative size and proximity). Version 2 and the stakeholders' edits use more mandatory language in some places, replace "imminent" with "immediate" in key sections and add a requirement that "lethal force shall only be exercised when all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted or appear impractical." Hart also described that a restraint option listed in one draft would be prohibited in another and noted open questions about whether certain Penal Code provisions (including Penal Code section 835a) should remain in the order.

Public comment ran more than an hour and included people directly affected by officer-involved incidents, longtime community advocates and former department staff. Several speakers called for stronger discipline and independent review of officer conduct. Jackie Borosac, speaking about the department’s Early Intervention System, said the program had produced "so few EIS interventions" despite hundreds of identified outlier officers and said there were only eight interventions in 2015, three of which related to excessive force.

Civil-rights advocates repeatedly urged adoption of version 2a. Alan Schlosser of the ACLU said, "The general order adopts a higher standard of police conduct than Graham v. Connor," calling that sentence a key commitment that would signal real change. Karen Freshman of San Franciscans for Police Accountability, citing past officer-involved deaths, urged the commission to increase discipline, remove problem officers and strengthen hiring and oversight.

Commissioners and staff responded to public concerns while clarifying the commission’s authority. President Loftus and others noted the commission’s role is administrative discipline and policy-setting, not criminal charging. Commissioner Wong requested that the City Attorney or the Department of Human Resources present legal guidance before any final action so the commission can understand which provisions may be subject to collective bargaining and which are within the commission’s charter authority.

The commission set the item for further discussion and possible action at its June 22 meeting and asked staff to arrange a legal briefing before that date. The Office of Citizen Complaints and others were invited to supply written edits; Hart reminded the public that all drafts are posted online and that written comments could be sent to sfpd.commission@sfgov.org.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn that was seconded and carried; the commission did not adopt a final policy at this session.

What’s next: The commission will hear the item again June 22 after a legal briefing to clarify what policy language it can adopt administratively and what may require negotiations or other procedural steps.