The Board of Supervisors Rules Committee on Monday discussed the mayor’s proposed Initiative Ordinance for the March 2024 election, which would allow voters to enshrine police policies governing surveillance technology and vehicle pursuits. In an hour-long hearing, supervisors and legal experts voiced concerns over surveillance, racial bias and lack of oversight.
Police Chief William Scott, while insisting that he could not “have a position” on specific issues on the measure, such as the pursuit policy, said “whatever policy that comes out of these will still have to go through the Police Commission.”
In fact, with the exception of installing security cameras, all the changes on the ballot measure will go through the Police Commission, leading Supervisor Ahsha Safaí to ask whether the Mayor’s office attempted to work within the Police Commission to make the policy adjustments before taking them to the voters.
“It seems some of these things are contrary to what we have worked with the chief over the last few years in this body, pushing for justice reform,” said Safaí at the end of the discussion.
“I think some of these feel a bit rushed,” he continued. “It’s contrary to what I heard from this chief over the last five or six years, in terms of wanting to work in a more collaborative fashion.”
Safaí also noted the racial bias in police encounters, which is still “a great concern in this city,” he said. “When I heard that, once voters weigh in, there’s still work that needs to be done with the police commission and department, I’d like to learn a bit more about that.”
Supervisor Shamann Walton, who is also on the Rules Committee raised questions about the measure. “If we are going to chase people in the streets of San Francisco, which have and can lead to death, then we are headed in the wrong direction,” Supervisor Shamann Walton said.
“Most certainly, we do not put ballot measures in front of people that eliminate oversight,” Walton added.
The proposed ballot measure would authorize officers to use technology like drones and cameras to fight crimes, said Andres Power, a policy director in Breed’s office. For additional new technology, the measure would permit the police department to use surveillance technology for up to one year without Board of Supervisors’ approval, so long as best practices for data and privacy are followed.
The measure will also allow officers to actively pursue an individual for felonies and violent misdemeanors, including retail theft, vehicle theft and auto burglaries, “when deemed safe to do so,” Power said. Officers can also file reports by using body-worn camera footage “when visual documentation is sufficient to fulfill the report requirement.”
The measure requires that the Police Commission hold hearings and public engagement, to involve the community in the conversation before any major change in police policy.
The goal of the ballot measure, said Power, is to maximize the efficiency of police officers by bringing them from behind their desks and into the streets.
“This measure makes sure our officers are using their time in the best possible way, being out on the street working in communities and supporting public safety,” Power said.
During the public comment section, Julie Traun, the director of court programs at the Bar Association of San Francisco, also weighed in. She said the association had issued a 16-page letter regarding the measure.
“We are deeply troubled by this,” said Traun. “There are dangerous parts of this that we really need to stop and take a look at, and consult the Department of Justice before we proceed further.”
Power said that the California Department of Justice had provided feedback, but not “an opinion one way or another.” It will weigh in after the Police Commission adopts the changes on the measure, he added.
Mayor Breed submitted the proposed measure for a hearing before the Rules Committee on Oct. 17. The mayor will sign the measure onto the March 2024 ballot, where it would need a simple majority to pass into law.
Other counties are using technology to enforce the law while also keeping the citizenry safe…How about adopting the practice of launching tracking devices onto the cars of people who have committed crimes – allowing the police to track the vehicles at a safe distance, keeping the citizens safe but apprehending the perpetrators at a later time? How about license plate readers, that connect to a database of stolen vehicles and/or plates, so that we can stop crime before it begins? How about allowing cops to pull over cars who have plates that don’t match their vehicles, or who lack plates altogether? How about actually hiring cops who want to do their jobs, because they live in SF, not in another county or even another state? Longtime SF citizens would love to have some answers as to why we aren’t doing any of the above. Cheers! Morticia
Also it should maybe be illegal to drive around wearing a balaclava…
How can anyone reasonably object to something going on the ballot so that the voters can decide?
At this point I’m in favor of just about anything that is legal and reasonable to stop the rampant property crime, as well as other types of criminal behavior, both violent and nonviolent. We are reaping what we have sown. What is wrong with letting voters decide on these proposals? I’m regularly amazed at the number of authorities, officials, and “activists” who seem more interested in supporting crime and criminals than they are concerned for decent, law abiding San Franciscans.
The activists are freaked that they might be thwarted by the populous of San Francisco
Hey,
I watched the hearing which was easy at 29 minutes.
Not as short as last week’s 4 minute Land Use but Peskin’s strangle on Public Comment is tightening.
Was particularly struck by testimony of elegant lady from SF Bar Association who could not believe that she was given one single minute to explain the 16 page Bar opposition paper to the measure.
We need a Charter Amendment to guarantee a minimum of 3 Minutes Public Comment both in person and to Restore Phone-Ins.
This is Rampant Cancel Culture after Democracy.
Sorry for the passion.
Go Niners !!
h.
“Justice reform”? A Czech news crew got held up at gun point on B and C covering APEC. Justice reform? With an international reputation for having lost the City to crooks?
Surveillance technology and drones eh… Sounds like the mayor’s got an agenda.
Plus this not aligning with the chief apparently wanting to work more collaboratively for justice reform in recent years.
You can measure the pro-crime vote in San Francisco: It’s the 45% of voters who wanted to keep Chesa Boudin.
The majority of us think it’s important to try to reduce crime, and don’t want to continue tying the police department’s hands. Our local shoplifting videos have made San Francisco an international laughingstock. It’s not just our reputation that has suffered. We know that progressives hate commerce, but the rest of us suffer when businesses are forced to close.
We can’t let pro-crime police commissioners like Hamasaki continue to protect felons. It’s really simple: we need to allow cops to chase robbers.
Candace, we voted Chesa out a long time ago and the idea was the new da would reduce crime, homelessness and drug overdoses. I missed where those things improved over the last few years. I guess Jenkins is pro crime? Or did you recallers forget to mention we would also need drones, increased surveillance, more intrusive police powers? I just remember the promise of a new da and arresting / convicting our way to paradise. Maybe, one can identify the gullible, simplistic and perrenially dead wrong by looking at the % who voted for Jenkins (twice!)?
You seem brilliant.