Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Pressroom Phone Records topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors advance ordinance to remove SFPD access to Hall of Justice pressroom phone records
Summary
Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduced an ordinance to bar the police department from inspecting or using phone records for city telephones provided to news media at the Hall of Justice and to transfer administration to the Department of Administrative Services; SFPD officers spoke in support and the committee advanced the item with recommendation.
Supervisor Gerardo Sandoval introduced a short ordinance directing that telephone service provided for members of the news media at the Hall of Justice be administered by the Department of Administrative Services rather than the San Francisco Police Department and prohibiting the police department from inspecting or making use of those records. Sandoval said the change would be largely administrative — potentially requiring only a phone-company switch — and said the measure is intended to protect press civil liberties in light of allegations that officers have in the past obtained records tied to reporters.
"I believe in the past, there have been allegations that the department has been able to access these phones in order to conduct investigations sometimes of the press," Sandoval said, framing the ordinance as a simple but strong policy step to separate bill administration from the police department.
Two San Francisco police captains testified at the hearing. Captain John Hennessy, of the Bureau of Investigations, said the department does not oppose the ordinance and urged transparency: "Anything that brings transparency to these investigations is fine by us. We have nothing to hide." Paul Chignell, a captain who spoke on his own time, said he supported the ordinance as necessary to ensure the police do not interfere with First Amendment activities and pointed supervisors to SFPD General Order 8.1, which provides guidelines for officers engaging with First Amendment activity.
The committee noted that the ordinance text before members is brief and that the measure is intended to be an ordinance rather than a resolution to send a stronger policy signal. Committee members thanked the police witnesses and identified a cosponsor; the chair moved the item forward "with recommendation." The record did not include a roll-call vote on final adoption at this meeting.
Next steps: the ordinance was forwarded by the Rules Committee with recommendation for further consideration; the committee directed staff to include the item on the next agenda of the appropriate legislative body for formal action.
