Commission denies request to close patrol‑special Jane Warner’s disciplinary hearing; schedules open hearing at Hall of Justice

The San Francisco Police Commission on April 23 denied a motion by Patrol Special Officer Jane Warner to close her disciplinary hearing to the public, after extended legal argument about the historical status of patrol specials and whether Warner met the standard to show good cause for closure.

Jane Warner, who identified herself as patrol special officer Jane Warner (star 2629) and president of the Patrol Special Police Association, asked the commission for a closed session, arguing that the commission has not set clear policies for patrol specials and that disclosure at a public hearing would harm her business interests and safety. Warner cited prior city‑attorney opinions and charter provisions and said patrol specials have historically been treated as police officers in the city.

City/department counsel (Miss Worsham) replied that the rules presume public hearings unless the movant demonstrates good cause under the commission’s trial rules (an invasion of personal privacy or risk of physical harm). Counsel argued Warner is a private security contractor rather than a city peace officer and that the motion did not satisfy the required two‑prong showing.

Commissioners debated both legal history and practical privacy concerns — including whether public testimony might require Warner to disclose a client list that could be treated as business‑sensitive information. Several commissioners noted the commission’s 1994 rules and subsequent appellate guidance that patrol specials were not to be treated as peace officers for purposes of Copley‑style closed hearings.

Roll call on the motion to close produced the following votes: Sparks — No; Marshall — No; Veronetti — No; Campos — Recused; De Jesus — Yes; Lee — No; Mizuho — No. With fewer than four affirmative votes, the motion failed and the commission denied closure.

After the vote, commissioners directed that the substantive disciplinary hearing be scheduled at the Hall of Justice at the earliest convenience of Officer Warner and Commissioner Lee; commissioners discussed holding the hearing in a non‑televised venue as an accommodation but did not grant the requested closed session. A separate motion to dismiss the disciplinary charges was debated but was not resolved at this meeting; commissioners indicated that further briefing and a full hearing will follow.

What speakers said (selected): Warner argued that patrol specials “have been considered police officers since their formation in 1847” and that public proceedings would damage her business interests. City counsel argued there is a “presumption in favor of having open hearings” and that Warner had not met the burden of proving good cause for closure. Commissioners noted the commission’s duty to be fair while balancing the public’s interest in open proceedings.

Next steps: The commission will set a date for the full disciplinary hearing at the Hall of Justice and will take up the motion to dismiss at a future meeting or after additional briefing.