Police Commission reviews new protocol requiring review of personnel records for Brady material

Commander Daniel Mahoney, the department's office of chief of staff, presented a bureau order designed to systematize how the San Francisco Police Department identifies and reports personnel‑file material that may be exculpatory under Brady v. Maryland and California evidence rules. Mahoney said the order resulted from four months of stakeholder negotiations with the city attorney, the district attorney, police legal staff and labor organizations and that the department solicited and received union input in multiple meet‑and‑confers.

The bureau order establishes a Brady Committee — described by Mahoney as composed of the assistant chief of the chief's office, the head of police legal, personnel and risk management directors, the attorney presenting the summary, and a retired jurist for additional legal perspective — to review summaries prepared by department attorneys. Mahoney said the department provides an affected member a written notice and a 15‑calendar‑day opportunity to submit materials before any name or dates are forwarded to the district attorney. He added the order was rolled out in mid‑August and that the department planned a one‑year pilot and a lessons‑learned review at the end of that period.

Commissioners commended the work but raised substantive questions. Commissioner Chan urged the department to begin codifying the bureau order into a Department General Order (DGO) and proposed adding clearer standards — for example, specifying the standard of proof (she suggested preponderance of evidence) and setting a transparent review standard for the chief’s consideration of committee recommendations. Commissioners asked whether the public defender’s office had been invited as a stakeholder; Mahoney said it was not included in the initial stakeholder group and that the POA and other labor organizations had been engaged closely.

Members also pressed implementation details. Commissioners asked whether the district attorney would maintain an ongoing list of employees who have potential Brady material; Mahoney confirmed the bulletin contemplates DA maintenance of such a list. He said the retired judge currently serving on the panel (retired appellate justice Harry Lowe) was volunteering his time and that budgetary support to retain such a judge was under discussion for the next fiscal year. The committee already has participated in in‑camera court reviews — Mahoney said there had been multiple in‑camera hearings and that courts have, in some cases, ruled that material should or should not be disclosed.

On the scope and timing of the review, Mahoney told commissioners the department had completed criminal‑matter reviews and was working through administrative histories; he estimated that cases reviewed by the committee in recent meetings ranged between "10 and 50," but he did not provide an exact tally of names turned over to the DA that evening. Commissioners pressed whether the protocol might cause staffing gaps if officers were found to have credibility problems; the chief and staff said some officers are already off the streets pending administrative processes and offered to provide a specific number at a later meeting.

Commissioners offered several changes to increase oversight and clarity: (1) invite the public defender’s office to review the DGO drafting process, (2) include a clear standard of review and burden of proof language, (3) build quarterly or periodic reporting (possibly in closed session) to update the commission on the number and status of cases referred under the protocol, and (4) pilot the bureau order while simultaneously developing DGO language so the policy can be refined before codification. Several commissioners volunteered to work with the OCC and department staff on drafting the DGO.

The meeting record shows strong support from multiple commissioners and department staff for the protocol’s intent — to help courts obtain material that may be material to defendants while protecting members’ legally protected personnel records — but commissioners asked the department to return with greater specificity about numbers, timelines and the interplay with court injunctions and scheduling.

The commission moved on to other agenda items after public comment from neighborhood residents who asked for non‑confidential community meetings to address the effect of officer removals in local beats. The commission later entered and returned from closed session and voted to withhold disclosure for the closed‑session discussions.

Ending The commission did not vote to adopt the bureau order as a DGO that night. Staff said the bureau order will remain a pilot for roughly one year with a lessons‑learned review, and commissioners asked staff to continue development of DGO language, to invite additional stakeholders to participate in that drafting, and to provide the commission with regular updates on the number and status of cases reviewed under the protocol.