That is the end of public comment.

Line item two, general public comment.

The public is now welcome to address the commission regarding items that do not appear on tonight's agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission.

Speakers shall address their remarks to the commission as a whole and not to individual commissioners or department or DPA personnel.

Under police commission rules of order, during the public comment, neither police or DPA personnel nor commissioners are required to respond to questions presented to the public, sorry, presented by the public, but may provide a brief response.

Individual commissioners and police and DPA personnel should refrain, however, from entering into any debates or discussion with speakers doing public comment.

If you would like to make public comment, please approach the podium.

Good evening again.

Um I'm coming here about my son Arbor Casa.

I'd like to use the overhead who was murdered August 14, 2006.

That's not him.

That's something else.

Start my time over.

But uh yeah, August 14, 2006, shot with a semi-automatic gun for saving someone else's life.

He was only 17, just turned 17 years old.

Uh August 14th is coming up.

This is June, July, August.

And I'm feeling some type of way, y'all.

This happens to most mothers.

I know I'm a strong person.

I've been dealing with this for 20 years.

I believe it'll be 20 years.

I've stopped counting.

But uh I'm still seeking justice for my son.

Um, I bring these names of all the perpetrators that were there who murdered my child.

One of them pulled that trigger on my son.

And the two main ones are Paris Moffat and Hannibal Thomas.

They are the main people.

I don't know those other guys, but I hear a lot about them.

Here's all the unsolved homicides that are not solved today, including my son, unsolved homicides, unsolved homicides.

And you don't want your mother standing over here over you, white, black, purple.

It doesn't matter what color you are.

You're gonna go through these stages of changes.

This is what the perpetrators left me, a lifeless body.

And if I have to do this for the rest of my life, y'all, I will.

That was my son, and I loved him dearly, and I still do.

My only child, my only son, not only child, but only son left with two three sisters without a brother, nephews, as well, seeking justice for my child.

I'm praying that while I'm alive, his case will get solved.

I want my day in court.

There is no other public comment, line item three, chief's report, discussion.

Weekly crime trends and public safety concerns.

Provide an overview of offenses, incidents, or events occurring in San Francisco, having an impact on public safety.

Commission discussion on unplanned events and activities the chief describes will be limited to determining whether to calendar for a future meeting.

Automated license plate reader update.

Good evening, President Clay, Commissioners, Director Henderson, and members of the public.

Um, before I get into crime trends, I'd just like to note that this past Monday, we swore in the 288th recruit class.

We had 17 recruits, and just a few highlights.

Seven of the graduates are bilingual and fluent in languages such as Spanish, Cantonese, Vietnamese, and Hebrew.

Members of the class have previously been employed in professions such as police service aides, 91-1 dispatchers, EMTs, and banking, to name a few.

Two of the officers served in the U.S.

military in the U.S.

Marine Corps and Coast Guard.

And the newly sworn officers will continue at the Academy for another five additional weeks before beginning a 16-week FTO field training program at various district stations.

Overall part one crimes down 22% year to date compared to 2025.

Total violent crimes down 12% for the year.

As of 614-26, there are 17 homicides year to date in 2026 compared to 10 in 2025, representing a 70% increase.

Looking at gun violence, we are down 17% compared to 2025.

Incidents of reported rapes, which include attempted enforceable rapes, are down 12%.

Assaults for the year are down 6% with a decrease of 27% in assaults by firearms.

Robberies are down 20% with robberies using a firearm declining by 32%.

Human trafficking incidents are down 31%, with nine incidents being reported so far this year compared to 13 last year at this time.

Total property crimes are down 23%.

Burglaries are down 26%.

Motor vehicle theft down 26%.

Larceny theft, which includes vehicle burglaries, are down 20% overall.

And specifically autoburglaries are down 42% versus 2025.

There were no shootings this reporting period, and there were no homicides this reporting period.

Like to bring your attention to a notable operational effort in keeping with our past practice and no different with FIFA.

We've been conduct uh and other large events.

We've been conducting proactive human trafficking operations with our other law enforcement partner agencies.

So wanted to note that on uh June 12th, I won't get into too many details because it's it's ongoing.

So there's some techniques that we don't want to disclose, but just to highlight on the 12th, there we made a uh an excellent arrest with partners involving uh an undercover decoy operation.

Uh the suspect arrived to meet with the decoy, and as officers moved in uh to arrest the subject, the suspect ran.

The officers took this person into custody and recovered a gun, multiple magazines, and pepper spray.

There was then a subsequent uh search of the suspect's vehicle, which led to recovery of another firearm, multiple HICAP magazines, and large containers of ammunition.

So, unknown what would have happened if uh we we didn't intervene, but uh it was really good work overall.

A couple of large events coming up.

Uh, Juneteenth parade on Saturday, Saturday, June 20th.

So I believe that starts at 1100.

So I wanted to invite the commission.

Uh SFPD will be marching, and then Pride weekend uh again on the 28th.

We'll be uh marching in the parade, and uh wanted to invite the commission out with us as well.

There were a couple of uh media uh worthy events that well, two officers were injured after being struck by a vehicle, which Commissioner Benedicto spoke about on June 12th.

Uh officers responded to Trader Joe's at California and Hyde when the officers arrived on scene and attempted to detain the suspect.

The suspect uh ran.

Officers pursued the subject on foot and uh attempted to take him into custody out on the street.

At that point, a vehicle unrelated to the event uh struck all three uh persons.

Two the two officers were um, luckily, they did not receive serious injury, although, judging by the uh the video that we that a lot of people saw, it was pretty miraculous.

Umfortunately, the suspect was deceased at the scene.

Then we had a vehicle collision of a motorcycle officer on June 15th.

This is approximately 10:34 a.m.

Uh, out at the uh near the airport on the 900 block of North Access Road.

Um essence, there was a accident between a large big rig semi uh and our motorcycle officer.

Again, uh it was a it was a big collision, but uh we got lucky and the officer essentially walked away from the scene.

So we're very grateful as a department.

Okay, I wanted to continue uh my report and speak a little bit about uh ALPR, give provide an update there.

Um, so just to start off, ALPR has become an everyday tool of our officers.

Um it is a very efficient way for us to disseminate information to our officers in real time, and it's become a cornerstone of our Arctic work.

Um, in that sense, I I have to give it credit, a lot of credit there, as far as reducing the overall crime and getting to these historic lows.

Uh so it's just a big part of what we do now in terms of our crime fighting efforts.

Having said that, it's also a subject that is controversial, and I know that there's a lot of concern from the public and the community on how we utilize uh this particular technology.

So it's it's very important to me as the chief of this organization to make sure that people that the community understand that we're using this technology in a righteous way.

So, with that, I wanted to uh make the commission and public aware of some findings from a recent audit.

So, per department policy, we do conduct periodic audits of the flock safety platform, um SFPD's uh automated license plate reader system.

Uh that those audits are conducted to ensure compliance with California law and SFPD policy, which among other things prohibit the sharing of ALPR data with out of state and federal agencies.

So to get into some details on 5.12 uh 2026, an audit of ALPR data was conducted by SFPD personnel, and we do have DC Martin, uh Commander Jonas and Lieutenant Ryan here who can speak to some of the details if there are additional questions.

The audit revealed immediate concerns that our ALPR database was queried at the request of out-of-state and federal agencies.

The searches were conducted by the Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, NICRIC, and in-state law enforcement agency that SFPD and other agencies throughout California have authorized to access our agency's ALPR data and other agencies as well.

To be clear, these searches were not conducted by SFPD members.

The audit logs revealed that searches conducted through NICRIC's authorized access referenced multiple federal and in-state agencies.

SFPD immediately notified NICRIC supervisors and immediately terminated NICRIC's access to our Flock ALPR network pending further investigation.

A comprehensive review of all ALPR data, including all NICRIC inquiries of SAPD's ALPR data was performed.

So these are some of the key findings that I want to talk about.

The following is our current understanding of the facts based on our event investigation to date.

The improper inquiries were limited to NICRIC, the NICRIC end user.

So there are no other agencies that access, and we SFPD did not disseminate any information.

NICRIC inquiries of concern date back to May 1st, 2025.

There were 299 inquiries of concern.

So, and just to clarify the inquiries, we don't know if any there were actually any hits from the as a result of these inquiries, and we don't know if there was any data that was actually transmitted due to these inquiries.

These inquiries stopped once NICRIC access was terminated by SFPD on 512, 2026.

These inquiries were not limited to SFPD's network.

The audit showed these inquiries were also made on over 500 plus other agency networks in addition to SFPD's network.

SFPD was the first and only agency to discover this statewide issue through its audit and report these findings to NICRIC.

All inquiries were conducted through NICRIC, and no unauthorized agencies ever had direct access to SFPD's ALPR data.

The audit logs show that the inquiries performed on behalf of federal and out of state agencies involved the investigation of criminal activities, including serious crimes such as homicide and child sexual abuse, as well as gun and drug trafficking.

The audit did not find any inquiries referencing immigration enforcement or reproductive rights investigations, and federal agencies identified do not include immigration and customs enforcement or Department of Homeland Security.

Based on NICRIC's investigation, SFPD has learned that the searches were conducted by analysts with the Western States Information Network, otherwise known as WISIN.

To clarify, WISEN is an agency that provides law enforcement deconfliction as well as analytical support to state and local law enforcement agencies across California.

NICRIC granted access to the WISN watch center during nighttime hours when they rolled over their services.

WISN has indicated that the analysts who conducted the ALPR searches at the request of other agencies were unaware of California law prohibiting the sharing of ALPR data with federal and out of state law enforcement agencies.

WISEN recently advised NICRIC that it has implemented updated policies and procedures and has trained its analysts of applicable laws.

At this time, NICRIC and WISENS access to SFPD ALPR.

Sorry, SFPD ALPR network remains disabled.

As far as the audit is concerned, the actual listing of the unauthorized agencies were in a free-form text box, as part of the kind of the columns that are provided in the data sets, which made the improper inquiries more difficult to detect.

The 299 improper inquiries account for approximately 0.005% of the overall inquiries that were audited.

So it was a bit of a needle in the haystack, and I think speaks to the comprehensiveness of our uh of our audit.

I will say that our audit is extremely, it obviously massive volume and it's uh quite manual.

Um the inquiries of concern include text within a column uh that are reserved for reasons for search, listing an agency that appears to be a federal agency or an agency outside of California, which would made it very unusual and not overt for the for the audit for the people that conducted the audit.

Um so just some additional remedies.

This was just disclosed today are all of our findings to the human rights commission that's uh currently looking into our compliance with City 12H uh laws uh pertaining to ALPR specifically, as well as Director Henderson and DPA, as uh we did self-select to to have our ALPR system um audited so that we can further bulletproof this technology, and then uh I won't go through every single agency that was found to have accessed, but I can just say, you know, DEA, our IRS, ATF, and then several state agencies in Oregon, state of Washington, and the such.

It's probably I don't know, maybe three dozen different types of agencies.

I did provide a packet uh to everyone on the commission, and that is actual the actual uh redacted um uh spreadsheet for all of the NIC RIC related uh accesses.

Yes, and that concludes my report.

Well, Chief, thank you for your report and thank you for this information, and it's really nice to see that the audit process does work here in San Francisco, and what you your team found here.

I mean, the the fact that Nick RIC and and wisdom are cut off, which is the emergency remedy that we need, uh the background and how they did this is just uncomprehensible.

How they're not intelligent to talk to each other and allow someone to have our our agencies work as well as other agencies outside of this.

So to the extent that this is just one of the ways that we know that we are checks and balances are working, and uh to the extent that Arctic is cut off or whatever you decide to do in that, uh I'm sure you will use your common sense and with the advice of your people, you will decide ultimately how we will continue the road with this kind of uh information, but it's a job well done to know that what you have done, what they found, the fact that unfortunately uh that they didn't use anything outside of uh what was in our agency stuff here from California, and no one got uh these other agencies that we definitely don't want to have any of that kind of stuff uh got access to it, but that's a job well done by your people, and hopefully you continue to do what you're doing.

The fact that you've self-reported, you've gone to all the agencies.

I commend you with that, Chief.

Thank you, sir.

Commissioner Elias.

Did the report or the audit came out today?

Or you disseminated it today?

I didn't catch that part.

So we initiated everything on on the 12th as soon as we knew, and then it took nearly a month to get through all of the data.

So this was the first commission that's occurred um after we got all the uh the data set back.

Is there a report that because I noticed you read off some of the findings?

Is there a report that outlines all the findings that you noted as well as any other additional stuff that was found?

This is all I have at this point at this time.

I wanted to make sure that I got it out, got in front in front of it as soon as possible, because like I said, it's really important to me for the public, the commission to know that we're being um forthright and just upfront about what's going on.

That's great.

Is there a report that we'll be following, or something the audit findings in some sort of written fashion that'll be available to the public as well?

It'll take us some time to continue to go through this, but that's something that we'll work on.

Okay.

And then you indicated that um the hits from the inquiries you didn't know what they were used for, or or I was trying to understand why you didn't know what they were for, or um, because there were it was the hits from the inquiry, and there was another section that you can be.

So there's a difference between a query and a hit.

Right.

So a query is just that it's checking our system or any system to see if there was an actual return.

So we don't know uh of those queries what actually generated a real hit.

Okay.

So that therefore we don't know what was actually disseminated.

Okay.

Okay.

And you don't know when the actual hits that did come up, whether they what they did with them or how they use that information, right?

Right.

So we don't even know if there were any hits in general, but I can just tell you that the from the text that was found in the audit, we know that they were you that were used in uh in connection with homicide investigations, human tracking trafficking investigations as well as drugs and gun investigations.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Benedicto?

Thank you very much, President Clay.

Thank you for that report, Chief.

Um I wanted to start by congratulating the graduates of class 288 for that graduation.

What was the size of that of the 288th recruit class when it started at the academy?

31.

31.

And then there were 17 graduates, correct?

That's right.

Okay.

So it's because I know that 287, we had 41 graduates, which I know was quite large.

So it's not the case that it was a larger it was a similar right to usual, it was just the 288 was smaller than 287 from the outset.

Is that right?

Okay.

What um do you know the approximate sizes of what it's looking like for the classes that are currently in the academy?

Yeah, they're they're significantly larger, so we're hoping for I think 50 in the next class.

50 to complete uh two oh two complete.

So, the next next class incoming class.

Okay.

Next income.

50 incoming, okay.

That's what we're hoping for.

Got it.

All right.

Any particular reason that we can tell why two eight seven was smaller than two, or that two eight was smaller than two eight seven?

You know, it's it's a lot of timing with who when we can get people through uh background investigations, there's a lot of variables.

I always I always hope for 50, but it doesn't always work out that way.

All right, thank you.

That's all.

Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Chief.

Uh, for this report, it's awesome.

Um I know uh it's been a difficult week, and um seeing the so glad that the officers um that were in pursuit of the suspect are okay, and uh unfortunate the suspect life was lost.

Um, however, and then the the um huge uh fentanyl um seizure of of um fentanyl, um I know everybody in the city feels much safer uh with those incidents that have been occurring, um, being successful, and um wanted to say congratulations to the class that just came in that graduated um and looking forward to uh helping with the recruitment of more to come in as we need more offices here in San Francisco, but wanted to commend you on on this report and everything that has taken place um for a great report and glad that there was no homicides.

Um, and uh just wanted to say thank you, thank you to our SFT staff that was working diligently and hard to secure our city streets and make sure that we're much safer.

Um so just wanted to commend you on that.

Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Director Henderson.

Thank you.

Uh I just wanted to again thank the chief for that report uh and the notice regarding the inquiries and also just as a reminder for the commission because the audit that was launched is still ongoing, and these inquiries are also at the core of related issues.

We will continue to keep everyone updated uh and we are working with the department to continue that audit.

It's not going to change the information and the focus is all the more timely.

And so we will continue that and I will continue to update uh the commission and the public on that as well.

That's it.

Commissioner Lowe.

Chief, thank you for that audit report.

I know you were put in an uncomfortable position and obviously discovered something you didn't want to discover.

Uh, but that transparency and that honesty is is greatly appreciated and the candor which you delivered it.

Um certainly was something I appreciate.

Uh I guess the only question I've got is uh are there other agencies whose access should be cut off as well?

I mean, have we sort of done an audit of who is able to uh make inquiries into our database?

Is there any any that you you think uh might be appropriate to uh uh to terminate their access so that we don't have this issue coming up again?

Yeah, I mean unfortunately I don't think that there's an easy way to figure out who shouldn't have access outside of complying with law, which would be out of state or uh federal agencies um as it you know as defined by I think SB 34.

Um this is one of those things where you know it it could be kind of any agency and there is law that dictates how you treat this data.

Um so I think it would be almost impossible to go through the list of people that have access throughout California and be able to predict who shouldn't have it.

I'm wondering whether it might help to send a warning out uh or a reminder to those agencies about the California law and what what it says and how that data could be used just uh just so that uh people are put on notice that if they do make inquiries, there are restrictions of what they can do.

Yeah, so to that point, uh one of the things that we are going to participate in is there will be my understanding is that there will be a regional call that's coordinated by NICRIC, and we will be talking to other agencies that may be impacted and explaining how our audit and these folks uh discovered um what happened with our database so that everyone else can kind of do their research.

That's great.

Thanks.

Commissioner Benedicto.

Thank you.

I said one follow-up question.

I was looking at the packet uh that Nick Package provided.

Is this the the document that was you said provided also to DPA and the human rights commission?

No, not yet.

We we I just I did this was literally all last minute stuff.

Totally understood.

I just wasn't sure we when you said you'd notify HRC and DPA, um, so but it will be transmitted to them.

So I talked to Director Henderson, spoke to uh the HRC commissioner as well, and uh everything that we have will be disclosed.

And then will these materials also be made available for public consumption?

Yeah.

Okay.

And what mechan like what will that be on the the department's LPR or will it be some of the commission posts?

It will be on the commission website.

Okay, thank you.

If you would like to make public comment regarding the chief's report, please approach the podium.

Good evening.

Uh thank you for that report.

Um I wanted to bring up the use the overhead again about the um the the thing about uh ways to pay tipsters to come forth.

Um they can be anonymous.

They can have been have uh criminal record and uh been uh arrested before and they are able to testify.

Um I'm thinking of another way that we can get this out there soon, um, besides me bringing it here and being on the police um website that it can be posted outside often on polls besides me doing it, um, we can get the media and then the next thing I wanted to do.

I'm bringing up uh next um this year I will be doing a visual for my son.

Um this is the name unveiling thing, but we it's already unveiled, but I bring this picture with here um of everybody that showed up last year.

Even the mayor showed up, and he helped unveil the name of the street up here.

And I'm praying that everyone will come this year, including the mayor.

I would like him to come.

I have all the London Breed showed up.

And here's the name of the poll right there where he was murdered.

But it just shows how many people can show up and support this will bring awareness to all the unsolved homicides that I bring with me all the time, including my son.

And this year I want to bring awareness to all the unsolved homicides.

And hopefully these families will get justice as well as me.

Thank you.

Report on recent DPA activities and announcements.

Commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting.

Thank you.

Good evening.

As I mentioned in the weekly reports that have already been filed, we presented our annual budget to the Board of Supervisors last Friday, June 12th.

The members there from the board were complimentary in support of the work at DPA.

It was an overview of the work that's being done that's contained in the budget, specifically as it relates to us fulfilling our charter mandates and supportive also, of course, of the work uh being done at DPA, of the work with the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board.

We are continuing to have these conversations with the mayor's office and with the board to finalize our budget, it still is not uh finalized yet.

Uh, but I'll provide an update uh with you over the next few weeks.

Uh during this uh period from the last commission, DPA has opened 10 cases, and we have closed 26 cases.

Uh the most common allegation uh being made to the office this week involved officers behaving or speaking inappropriately with members of the public and in fail and secondarily and failing to properly investigate.

Again, these are the allegations uh for commission action this meet this evening.

We have one item on the agenda, item seven, uh, and for the DPA discipline review board findings and recommendations, and we also have information from the first quarter of 2026.

Uh the full report regarding uh what has gone on during the week has been filed in case anyone wants to see those records, the full breakdown of the hundred percent of all of that work is outlined uh on our website.

Also present for tonight's meeting.

Uh senior investigator Candice Carpenter is here and also present in the audience today from DPA is Sharon Wu and Jamal Anderson for the policy presentation and the discipline review board presentation on tonight's agenda.

I just want to point out uh thank you again last week for your allowing the interns to come.

Uh two of the interns missed it last week, and they are here in the audience tonight.

Uh both Ollie and Ali, same name, different spelling, uh, both from San Francisco State uh USF law school, uh, that are here in the audience tonight as well.

Uh the website for folks that want to get in contact with DPA directly, it's SFgov.org forward slash DPA.

And the phone number for the office is 415-241711.

That concludes my remarks for this week's report.

If you would like to make public comment regarding DPA director's report, please approach the podium.

There's no public comment.

Line item five commission reports, discussion and possible action.

Commission reports will be limited to brief description of activities and announcements.

Commission discussion will be limited to determining whether to calendar any of the issues raised for a future commission meeting.

Commission president's report, commissioners' reports, commission announcements, and scheduling of items identified for consideration at future commission meetings.

First, as it relates to the president's report, very briefly, as you say on June the 15th, Commissioner Techie, Leong, and Lowe, we all attended the graduation ceremony of the 17 candidates, new graduates from our department, plus two from Berkeley for a total of 19.

It was a wonderful group of individuals.

You saw them on the podium.

To answer your question, Commissioner Benedicto, you know, the two eighty-seven had a mid-30 graduate.

I knew I've been out to the academy during the course of the this last 288, 287, 288, in which is going to be 289.

And the explanation was that 288 was smaller class.

They had a group that was ready to go, and they were still sort of coordinating the getting the 289.

And so that's how it came up that they had that small group in between.

But uh they're gonna be very robust.

But also, as you know, in the report, I think people should know this outside in the community, as it goes relates to the recruiting for the department here in San Francisco.

You know, people are embracing uh police work here uh in the country, but in particular in San Francisco, and people there is this um there's just joy that people are saying this is so wonderful for the city.

You know, all these communities that I went to, and I went to every one of them, and people were saying, you know, we really want more police in our community, we want them to come and talk to us, we want them to walk around the communities.

We like that.

We we appreciate that, and it's special to us because we want our kids to be able to go out and play.

And so I think when you look at it, and that energy has transcended to outside of just our communities talking about it.

But this month of May, everyone look, we had 882 applications for the San Francisco Police Department.

On May the 16th, and Chief, you didn't blow your horn.

On May the 16th alone, there were 102 applications for the police department.

Currently, we've had 4,083 applications in half the year.

It's 94% up for becoming police officers in the city of San Francisco this year alone.

That is tremendous.

That's tremendous progress in the terms of people who are coming forth who want to be a part of this police, this San Francisco police department family, but it's more that they're embracing this kind of work and being part of giving community back to the community.

Uh, and so when we look at what is happening and where we were and where we're at now, uh we're looking at things that are looking up, and it's it's real pleasure to be here to see this happening right now.

So that's my report.

If you would like to make public comment regarding commission reports, please approach the podium, and there's no public comment.

Line item six SFPD serious incident review board findings and recommendations, first quarter 2026 discussion.

I know, so did I.

Otherwise, I'd give you my good evening, President Clay, Commissioners, and Executive Director Henderson and Chief Liu.

My name is Lieutenant Lisa Springer, and I'm the officer in charge of um internal affairs, as you guys all know.

And tonight I'm presenting numerous things, but I'm starting off with the quarter one serious incident review board, and of which we reviewed four separate officer-involved shootings.

The first officer-involved shooting occurred in 2023 on May 19th.

At approximately 220 p.m., our dispatch received or sent officers from the Ingallside to a call regarding a burglary suspect armed with a firearm on the 100 block of Bosworth.

The 911 caller or victim identified the suspect as a family member who resided in a second floor apartment.

The victim reported that the suspect forced entry into the victim's basement level apartment and pointed a firearm at them.

The suspect was known to have a prior arrest for shooting and killing his own dog at the same location two years prior.

With the perimeter established a critical incident was declared, and a command post was established.

Additional resources were called, such as HNT and on-call specialists and medics also staged.

At approximately 3 49 p.m., the suspect exited the rear of 145 Bosworth and stepped out into the breezeway leading to Cuvier Street.

Officers observed the suspect holding a bottle of vodka in one hand and a silver revolver in the other, or excuse me, handgun.

Officers issued clear commands to the suspect in both English and Spanish to drop the firearm.

The suspect did comply with the officers' commands to drop the firearm onto the ground, but they refused to distance themselves from the firearm and surrender.

For approximately or just under two hours, the suspect remained uncooperative and close to the firearm that was on the ground.

The suspect threw a set of keys that landed on the firearm, and officers continued to give commands in English and Spanish to move away from the firearm.

The suspect snorted suspected narcotics twice while in view of the officers and kissed a rosary.

At 5 50 p.m., approximately three and a half hours after the first officers were dispatched.

The suspect leaned over the firearm and abruptly grabbed the keys from on top of the firearm.

No officers fired at this time.

Seconds later, the suspect reached drought reached down and grabbed the firearm from its position on the ground, with the barrel pointing towards officers on the Cuvier side of the perimeter.

Excuse me.

Multiple officers yelled, no, hey, stop in Spanish and red light as the suspect reached toward the gun and grabbed it.

Officer number one discharged their department-issued rifle from an elevated overwatch position and struck the suspect.

Officer number two discharged a pepper ball projectile, targeting and contacting the ground ground near the suspect.

And officers three and four discharged the 40 millimeter foam baton.

After the shooting, a designated team consisting of special operations bureau members and the fire department tactical medics, emergency medics, quickly moved towards the suspect to provide medical aid and take them into custody.

The suspect was transported to a local hospital where they were pronounced deceased.

This deceased suspect's post-mortem toxicology report was positive for methamphetamine and amphetamine.

These are the general orders that were looked into.

As you can see, majority of them have to do with the use of force and officer-involved shooting general orders.

And they were found to be in policy and proper conduct on all counts.

Any questions on that?

Okay, the second officer-involved shooting that we reviewed in quarter one also occurred in 2023, October 9th.

Officers responded to the Chinese consulate located at 1450 Laguna Street regarding a 911 call reporting that a vehicle had crashed into the building and that the driver was armed with a firearm.

Officer number one was the first officer to arrive on scene.

And upon arrival, they observed that the vehicle had been driven through the Geary Street entrance doors and into the lobby of the consulate.

Recognizing the potential threat, officer number one unholstered their firearm and entered the building.

They observed security personnel actively struggling with the suspect against an interior wall.

And upon entry, officer one detected airborne pepper spray, which had been deployed by the security guards during their attempt to subdue the suspect.

Officer number one appeared to be affected by the spray and began coughing.

Officer number one reholstered their firearm to physically assist in detaining the suspect who was facing the wall at that time.

During the struggle, the suspect turned toward officer number one while holding the knife in their right hand.

The knife had previously been concealed from the officer's view.

The suspect then made stabby motions towards officer number one and a nearby security guard.

Officer number one backed away and discharged their firearm at the suspect.

Officers and personnel on scene rendered first aid, and the suspect was later pronounced deceased.

Same policies were reviewed as in the uh prior officer involved shooting, and um officer number one was found to be in policy and proper conduct on all policies reviewed.

Are any questions on that one?

The third one uh occurred in 2024, September 13th.

At approximately 1018 a.m., officers were engaged in an HSOC operation on the 400 block of Jesse Street when they on viewed a subject sleeping in a vehicle, a stolen vehicle with a silver revolver lying in plain view.

Officers staged the scene like a high-risk traffic stop and ordered the suspect out of the vehicle.

The suspect exited the vehicle, ignoring officers' commands to leave not touch the firearm, and fled on foot eastbound Jesse Street while holding the firearm.

Upon reaching Mint Street, additional officers started to pursue the suspect.

They also gave commands to stop and drop the firearm.

The suspect ignored the officers and proceeded through Mint Plaza onto Fifth Street and kept the firearm pointed at the ground.

While walking northbound on Fifth Street, the suspect entered a liquor store.

Officers believed the incident had now turned into a barricaded suspect, and they started to formulate a plan.

After about a minute and a half, the suspect exited the liquor store with the gun held by their waistband and continued to walk northbound on 5th Street.

An officer approached the suspect from behind and deployed the bolo wrap, which had no effect.

Again, the suspect ignored the officer's commands to stop and drop the firearm.

Upon reaching Market Street, the suspect ran towards the cable car turnaround and then proceeded down the north staircase, entering the Powell Street transit station, and the suspect initially hid in a corner.

The first driving officer spotted the suspect in the corner and ordered him to drop the firearm.

He ignored the commands and continued to walk through the station with the firearm pointed at the ground.

An officer approached the suspect from behind and deployed the bolo wrap again.

This time it did wrap around the suspect's legs, but he was still able to continue to walk and kind of just threw it off of himself to unwrap it.

The officer then deployed the bullet for a third time.

Again, no effect.

The suspect stood up and started walking toward the south side staircase.

And as they reached the staircase, they pivoted eastbound as if they were going to go up the stairs.

And while the suspect pivoted, the suspect raised the firearm towards officer number one and two who were coming down the stairs.

Fearing they were going to be shot, officer one discharged their firearm at the suspect, and officer number two discharged their extended range impact weapon.

The suspect turned around with the firearm still in the race position and now was now facing the officers that were in the station.

And officers three and four discharged their firearms at the suspect, fearing that they were about to be shot.

The suspect was struck by the gunfire and fell to the ground.

An arrest team moved in, secured the suspect, and rendered aid until paramedics arrived.

The suspect was transported to a local hospital where they were treated for their gunshot wounds and later discharged.

The officers involved in this shooting were also found to be in policy proper conduct, and there were three officers that shot.

Any questions on that one?

Okay, one more.

At approximately 4 23 p.m., a 911 caller reported that their children were playing in their backyard on the 1200 block of 41st Avenue when a neighbor yelled at the caller's children to be quiet.

The neighbor was in possession of a firearm and was in an adjacent uh backyard.

Officers responded to the caller callers' residence where they observed the neighbor in the backyard with the firearm.

Um a drone first responder uh responded to the scene and deployed the drone.

The suspect focused on their drone and pointed the firearm at the drone several times.

Umficer number one took a position on the 911 caller's deck or backyard porch, and they believed that the suspect was not aware of their presence.

Uh so officer number one's plan was to maintain a visual of the suspect while uh backup officers could respond.

Uh officer number two, who was a specialist, arrived on scene um and was equipped with a 40 millimeter less lethal.

Officer number two also took a position on the porch and discussed a plan with officer number one.

The suspect went inside their residence briefly and then returned to the backyard and walked to the northwest side of the fence.

The suspect held onto their fence with the left hand and waved the firearm back and forth.

The suspect continued to point the firearm at the drone.

The suspect moved forward along the fence line while holding the firearm atop the fence.

When the suspect pointed the uh firearm at the in the direction of officer number one, officer number one discharged their department-issued rifle.

After the officer involved shooting, officers who were positioned on the ground floor nearby advanced toward the suspect and ordered them on the ground.

The suspect complied.

The suspect appeared to have a gunshot wound to their right arm, so the officers placed two tourniquets on the suspect's arms and rendered aid until medics arrived.

Suspect was transported to a local hospital for treatment and later booked into the county jail.

Again, same general orders that were reviewed, and officer was found to be in policy proper conduct.

And then we just have the status of all open officer involved shooting cases and in custody deaths.

Thank you.

If you would like to make public comment regarding SFPD's serious incident review board findings and recommendations, please approach the podium.

And there is no public comment.

Line item seven.

SFPD's disciplinary review board findings and recommendations first quarter 2026 discussion.

Good evening, commissioners.

I'm Sharon Wu.

I'm with the Department of Police Accountability.

Um I'm here with Lieutenant Springer for the disciplinary review board.

Uh quarter one, 2026.

The aggregate trends identified by internal affairs this quarter were um the top three were conduct and becoming 19 cases at about 35 percent.

Um neglective duty general at about 30 percent and failure to appear at the range, 11.32 percent.

And that was 41 allegations, 26 cases and involving 35 employees.

For DPA, the aggregate trends were uh neglect of duty, just general.

Um there were nine allegations, that's 50 percent of what we saw.

Unwarranted action.

There are three allegations, 17% of what we saw, and neglect of duty, mostly body worn camera.

Three allegations, 17% against again, these are just the allegations that were brought, not any kind of sustained conduct.

It represented 18 allegations with 11 cases and 14 sworn officers.

And I looked at the all of the conduct on becoming.

So it looks like it's really the DPA show.

We had four policy failures in the first quarter of 2026 and zero training failures.

The first two policy failures were basically both the same things, partially addressed by the recent department notice.

An assault occurred or some kind of event occurred, and the victim, who was also the complainant, wanted the case investigated.

DPA did not have an issue with the department not pursuing investigations based on their criteria on when they can have investigations assigned.

But the there was no communication with the victims in the case as to whether or not their cases were assigned for investigations.

And there was a lot of back and forth between the victims and the department as to where the cases went, who reviewed it, and whose decision it was to not assign the case.

Having to do with needing to have more feedback with victims of crime and identifying when cases are assigned and when they're not assigned.

And again, the department did not have any issue with the cases not being assigned.

They did not fit the criteria for assignment of cases.

But we do feel because crime victims come forward, they are entitled to information and whether or not cases, where their cases go, and if they don't go anywhere, who they should be contacting about that.

And we have had a discussion with DPA and the investigations, and right now it really comes down to staffing and not being able to contact all of the victims, and also if they do contact the victims when they are told that their case isn't assigned, there's going to be a lot of phone calls.

So we're going to have to take that into account as well.

We discussed also electronic or automated systems where at DPA, when we get a complaint, we give uh complainant a PIN number, that pin number they can put into our system.

It tells them where the case is assigned and who the investigator is.

We've discussed possibilities of that and working together with the department with some potential IT solutions for the department and for crime victims.

Is that right?

Am I there?

Yeah, the Powell Street that started in Mint Plaza.

During the course of our review of that particular OIS, and we found that of course the actual discharge of the firearm was proper and in proper conduct in policy for the department.

But there at the initial scene where the individual had a firearm, there was an officer that was ERIW trained who was at the scene but did not have a sergeant who did not have access to an ERIW.

And we had some concerns about the fact that the scene was allowed to evolve into an area that was much more populated.

He was sort of isolated when he was in Mint Plaza, but was allowed to break containment, go into a populated liquor store, break containment again, go into the BART station.

And we felt that if an the individual at Mint Plaza, that sergeant, who was ERIW trained, had an ERIW, there was a good potential that that particular event could have been contained in a more isolated area.

And so our policy recommendation was that either all sergeants who come to a scene have an ERIW or trained sergeants, have the RIW available to them, especially in critical situations.

We understand the fiscal impact of that.

And we understand that that might be a difficult thing to accomplish, but given this particular situation and given the fact that it really went into a very populated area, it's not a bad suggestion, we don't believe for the department to consider that going forward.

And the force policy failure had to do with the property DGO, which is from 1994, currently in concurrence with the department.

They have updated it, and I believe they have addressed this particular issue.

In this case, the arresting officer did seize the property, but he gave the transportation of the individual as well as all the property to another officer, transferring that responsibility.

And we do believe that transference of the responsibility is appropriate, but the DGO did not allow for that.

It said that the initial officer will be responsible the entire time, and that's just not feasible in the way that we police now.

We've made those recommendations to written directives.

But the last slide really was the uh a recap of the summary and how we think those factual scenarios should be addressed.

Thank you.

And then the last bit is the Office of Equity and Inclusion submitted their review of the quarterly reports, and they did not find any disparities or inequities, and so no corrective action was recommended.

The next steps, second quarter 2026 disciplinary review board has yet to be scheduled.

Uh, but we'll do that uh shortly, and then um OEI will review those that information as well.

Commissioner Scott.

If you could go back to one of the slides, you mentioned that something about the video um, I believe it was before page eight, the video was not um.

I'm trying to see which one it is.

That's slide six, incident one.

Yeah, incident one.

Yeah, the uh victim compliant requested officers' retrieved security video from the business.

The business said the video was not available.

Um, and the complaint I'm sorry, so that's the business said that the video was not available.

The officer did request the video, the business wasn't able to comply.

Um, oftentimes what would happen is the case is assigned that the follow-up officer would go back and try to gain video from the location, but because the case wasn't assigned, um, that did not happen.

Um the event was um there was um information in the event that would fit the criteria for the department not to assign the case, which was that there was mutual combat, that the identification of the individuals were not, that there wouldn't be additional evidence that would be helpful in resolving many of the issues.

Um but there was request, the officer did request it, the uh the um establishment did not comply with that officer's the original officer um patrol officer's request.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Benedicta.

Thank you very much, President Clay.

Um I wanted to talk about recommendation number three.

I know the this isn't the first time that there's been an issue where there we didn't have any RIW at a C and Red might have been helpful.

I don't think it happens incredibly often, but I think it's it's happened a couple of times in the last number of years.

And so I know this is a recommendation that's been made before.

I was wondering, Chief, if there I know it's budget season, um, and um I was wondering if you could speak a little bit to uh recommendation three and and um either broader some sort of broader deployment of IWs.

Yeah, I mean I think just broad broadly speaking, of course, we would try to use ERW when when feasible.

I think specifically with this case without knowing all of the details, I think it becomes a little problematic when we talk about like trying to manage tactics this in this manner.

Um again, it it would require a bigger um I think assessment by our tax by our um uh tactics folks, but one of the issues that I just see off the bat is that sergeants ride alone, yeah.

And so when you ask them to bring the RIW to to each to a scene, um, what we teach is there shall be a legal lethal cover for ARW.

Yeah, so right off the bat I see an issue with that.

Um, but as far as like getting more EREW out there, absolutely like that that that is clearly what we we would rather go to.

Uh we have other tools, you know, uh 40 millimeter uh pepper ball that has been very effective in being able to um solve some of these situations.

But again, I think that um there's there's a there's some problem with with what's being suggested here.

Thank you.

That's all there was also a lot of footbeat officers that day, so a lot a lot of them wouldn't have it.

And yeah, just I can speak from my own experience when I was a sergeant at Ingleside.

There were ERWs available.

You just have to check them out.

Thank you.

If you would like to make public comment regarding the SFPD disciplinary review board findings and recommendations, please approach the podium.

There's no public comment.

Line item eight, discussion and possible action to approve revised general order 2.05 complaints against non-swarm for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law.

Discussion and possible action.

Um so I am here again as the um subject matter expert for this.

Um this general order was last updated in 1994, and this update was requested on the 2025 annual review list.

The department received 13 comments during the public review process, which prompted 11 revisions.

Um following are some highlights um of the major changes to 2.05 of we've modernized language and terminology to reflect the department's current policy style.

Complaint intake and investigation are now clearly separated.

Um supervisors document the complaint and IED directs the investigation.

Supervisors must now immediately notify and consult with IED when a serious allegation is made.

Um and I'm happy to take any questions that you might have.

Commissioner Benedicta.

Thank you, President Clay.

Thank you, Lieutenant Springer.

Um glad we got to uh consolidate all of your appearances.

Yes here tonight.

Hopefully you're not sick of us.

Uh this is um glad to see this DJO updated.

Um, this is quite the trifecta, it's shorter.

Uh, took into account comment and it removes uh updates to DGO from the 90s, so three of my favorite things all happening in one place.

Um I also saw there was uh a DPA comment that was also incorporated in, so I'm glad that that got incorporated.

My only question is I noticed that the formal investigation report section was completely removed, and I know that that had some areas that seem maybe too detailed, but also you know had requirements for conclusion recommendations that sort of mirrored what we see for sword officers' proper conduct and proper conduct.

So I'm curious as to that removal if that if that report requirement lives somewhere else, or uh if you could speak to that.

Uh yeah, so as you kind of mentioned, the um prior policy section was too detailed and prescriptive.

Um the format and the content of the investigation investigative reports um will be guided by IAD and will evolve on best practices, and yeah, it is encompassed in like our station level guide for investigations, which is on the intranet.

Okay, so it would still be the case that there would be a report generated, even though there's no longer a formal report requirements in the DGO.

Yes, um, yes, so there's there is still a formal investigation report, it's just they took that section out because it like I said, like you mentioned, it lies within the station level guide to IED investigations, which is on the internet, which is what they follow.

Okay, thank you.

Commissioner Lyas.

I also wanted to ask with respect to page uh three, the reporting section is also taken out in addition to the formal investigative report, but just actually the report where um explaining why an immediate investigation needs to happen.

And I know that you know, in reviewing discipline cases, that sometimes these reports also are included in the disciplinary stuff, and they also guide IAD when you guys get the file to give you the sort of a starting point or a recap and summary of the report.

So I'm also curious as to why that was taken out.

I'm sorry, you're asking why the the immediate investigation requirement changed?

Yeah, the reporting of that.

Yeah, so the um since the prior order was written in 1994, um, I guess back then losing contact with a witness was a bigger concern than it is now.

So today with like cell phones, email, text messaging, and other communication methods, it makes it a lot easier uh to contact witnesses, um, and the policy requires immediate notification still when an allegation of criminal conduct or situations where an on duty member may be unfit for duty.

Uh so that's that is still in there.

And you indicated that the I there's the guide to station level IAD investigations.

Yes.

And does that pertain to the IAD investigators, or is that to the officers who are handling um these the processing of these complaints?

That's it's for like the supervisors to follow if they're doing like a low level, so like lost property or the discourtesy uh complaints against the PSAs and whatnot.

It's for them the supervisors to follow, and they basically are the IED investigator just doing the low-level station.

And how um big is that guide to station level IED investigations?

Um I don't know how many pages it is.

It's on the it is on the intranet though, um, but it's it's pretty extensive and thorough.

It just also shows them how to like format it and like witness statements and it formats it all for them.

Is there anything in that guide that would be pertinent for the public to know?

And the reason I ask that is because again the DOJ recommendations, one of their recommendations is they wanted um the DGOs to have all the information available to officers instead of referring them to link documents like department bulletins or notices and other guides because they want the sort of controlling document all in one, so officers don't have to find different things.

Um, so I'm wondering if you could speak to that maybe how we don't know how helpful it would be for like um citizens to look at it's it's more of like the guide for the supervisors how to do it, other than it does talk about like the different findings that are available.

So I suppose if they did make a complaint, um, because they do get a letter at the end saying it was not sustained or whatever, so that part might be helpful.

For the public to know, right?

But just I think that small section, which is like a page of it.

Could that be incorporated into this DJS or the public's aware aware of what to expect in terms of when they get that letter?

Um I can go back to the written directives unit and uh ask them.

No further questions.

Thank you.

I'd like to move to advance proposed DGO2.05 to the meeting confer stage.

Second.

You would like to make public comment regarding DGO 2.05, please approach the podium.

There's no public comment.

So commissioners on the motion to move DGO 2.05 to meet and confirm.

Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

I.

Commissioner Lowe, yes.

Commissioner Scott.

Aye.

Commissioner Scott, aye.

Commissioner Leong?

Yes.

Commissioner Leong, yes.

Commissioner Benedicto?

Yes.

Commissioner Benedicto, yes.

Commissioner Elias, no.

Commissioner Elias, no.

Vice President Techie?

Yes.

Vice President Techie, yes.

President Clay.

Yes.

President Clay, yes.

Motion passed.

Line item nine.

Discussion and possible action to approve revised general order 6.05 death cases for the department to use in meeting and conferring with the affected bargaining units as required by law.

Discussion and possible action.

Sorry.

President Clay, Commissioners, Director Henderson, Chief Liu.

Good evening.

I am Deputy Chief Luke Martin.

I oversee investigations.

So I'm subbing in here for the subject matter expert that is a lieutenant Kelvin Sanders of our homicide unit.

Unfortunately, he couldn't make it today.

So I will try to do my best to uh make sure we get across everything that's important here.

So this DGO was last updated in 2023.

However, Prop E provided an opportunity for this to be updated, so it was added to the 2025 annual review list.

This revision modernizes the DGO to reflect current operations, clarify roles, and improve readability for members in the field.

So the following are some of the highlights of some of the major changes and updates in general order 6.05, which addresses death cases.

So this draft will reduce the order from nine pages to five pages by consolidating procedural details, making it more accessible for members responding in the field.

A little less confusion.

The new 802 or death case standby process.

There is a new section explaining how the office of chief medical examiner, San Francisco Fire, and San Francisco police coordinate the process for standby requests.

This is a work floor workflow not previously captured in the older policy.

So this draft provides members with clear criteria to direct certain cases to the narcotics unit.

We created a section to address California's end-of-life options act.

Updated uh body worn camera integration.

So this draft allows members to use their body worn cameras to create a digital copy of the Office of Chief Medical Examiners uh receipts.

There's new language in the homicide section explicitly frames the body as evidence and requires members to maintain an unbroken chain of custody, strengthening the evidentiary standards.

And then I'm happy to uh address any questions that you might have for this uh updated policy.

I'll make a motion to move DGO six point oh five to meet and confirm.

Second, thank you.

If you would like to make public comment regarding DGO six point zero five death cases, please approach the podium.

And there is no public comment.

Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

Aye.

Commissioner Lowe, aye.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Scott, yes.

Commissioner Leong?

Yes.

Commissioner Leong, yes.

Benedicto?

I Commissioner Benedict, I.

Commissioner Elias?

Yes.

Commissioner Lyas, yes.

Vice President Techie?

Yes.

Vice President Techie, yes, and President Clay.

Yes.

President Clay, yes.

Motion passes.

Line item ten.

Public comment on all matters per turning pertaining to item twelve below, closed session.

Including public comment on line item eleven.

Vote whether to hold item twelve in closed session and public comment on item thirteen.

Vote whether to disclose any or all discussion on item twelve held in closed session.

We need a motion.

Move to go to closed session.

Second.

And we take a vote or is unanimous.

Vote.

Commissioner Lowe, how do you vote?

Yes.

Commissioner Lowe, yes.

Commissioner Scott?

Yes.

Commissioner Scott, yes.

Commissioner Leon?

Yes.

Commissioner Leon, yes.

Commissioner Benedicto?

Yes.

Commissioner Benedicto, yes.

Commissioner Lyas?

Yes.

Commissioner Lyas, yes.

Vice President Techie?

Yes.

Vice President Techie, yes.

President Clay.

Yes.

President Clay, yes.

So we are going into closed session.

SFGov TV.

San Francisco government television.

So it's only going to get worse.

We are back in open session.

Line item thirteen.

Vote to elect whether to disclose any or all discussion in item twelve, held in closed session, San Francisco Administrative Code Section Sixty Seven.

Motion to not disclose closed session.

Commissioner Scott, yes.

Commissioner Leon?

Yes.

Commissioner Leon, yes.

Commissioner Benedicto?

Yes.

Commissioner Benedicto, yes.

Commissioner Elias.

Commissioner Elias, yes.

Vice President Techie.

Yes.

Vice President Techie, yes.

President Clay.