Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Of Force Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Police commission sets DGO 5.02 (shooting policy) for vote after additional review
Summary
A rewrite of San Francisco Police Department Department General Order 5.02 — which would codify recent department bulletins on shooting and firing at vehicles — was not ready for adoption Feb. 2. The commission directed staff to return with a final draft after internal concurrence, city‑attorney review, use‑of‑force expert input and a 30‑day meet‑and‑confer with the police union.
The San Francisco Police Commission set a deadline to consider a rewritten Department General Order 5.02 — the department’s shooting policy — after hearing that the draft still needs legal and labor review.
Commander Mahoney told the commission the department has incorporated changes issued previously as department bulletins and is working on a consolidated DGO, but that additional steps remain, including internal concurrence after use‑of‑force expert review, a meet‑and‑confer with the Police Officers Association (a process that can take up to 30 days under the MOU), and city attorney review before a public hearing and a vote. Mahoney said department bulletins restricting firing at moving vehicles remain in effect in the interim.
Commissioners pressed for a clear timeline and said the issue affects officer and public safety. Commissioner James Hammer said he had been told the rewrite was on track for presentation and expressed concern at further delay for a policy that “directly impacts the safety of police officers and citizens.” The chair set the matter for presentation and a vote within 30 days on the March 2 calendar.
Director Hicks — representing the Office of Citizen Complaints — said the OCC provided detailed recommended language (drawing on Los Angeles’ policy and PERF guidance) and that the proposed DGO received only a draft a little over a week earlier; she urged continued collaboration between the OCC and the department. The commission asked that, if the OCC and department cannot agree, the OCC provide an alternate draft so the commission will have two proposals to consider.
No policy was adopted at the Feb. 2 meeting; the commission’s action was procedural — to require the final concurred draft and, if necessary, additional competing drafts — before a public hearing and adoption vote. The department representative said he would expedite remaining steps and pledged to present a package to the commission within the 30‑day window.
