Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Oversight Strip Searches topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Oversight board acknowledges reports of women strip‑searched in custody, says investigation limits comment
Summary
At its Dec. 5 meeting the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board acknowledged news reports that several women in custody alleged improper strip searches; the board said the sheriff’s office is investigating and declined to discuss specifics but invited impacted people to come forward.
President Palmer opened the Dec. 5 meeting of the San Francisco Sheriff’s Department Oversight Board by acknowledging recent news reports that several women in sheriff custody alleged they were subject to strip searches that may have violated department policy. Palmer said the sheriff’s office is investigating the matter and the board cannot discuss specifics while that investigation is active. "We understand the sheriff's office is currently investigating the incident because this matter is under active investigation," he said.
The statement drew immediate public reaction. Multiple attendees asked why the announcement was not listed on the agenda and demanded an opportunity for public comment about the allegations. Michael Petrelis, speaking during the welcome‑new‑member item, told the board he would "be coming back and monitoring how you'll be voting" and urged the new member to state how she would preserve independence from the mayor and other appointing authorities.
Palmer framed the board's role as focused on civilian oversight and accountability while explaining the legal limits on discussion. "Neither the oversight board nor the sheriff's office can discuss the specific details at this time," he said, adding that the board is in ongoing communications with the sheriff's office and "we are following developments closely and with great care." He invited anyone affected by the allegations to come before the board to express concerns and said the board will update the community as soon as information can be legally shared.
Board members and staff reiterated that the board generally does not comment on active, pending investigations but emphasized the value of independent civilian oversight. Several public commenters pressed the board to make space on future agendas for discussion of investigative processes, complaint handling and transparency. The board did not take formal action on the matter at the meeting.
The board adjourned after completing its agenda; it said it will provide updates if and when legal constraints allow.
