The San Francisco Police Commission voted 4-3 to adopt a new policy limiting “pretextual” traffic stops known to target communities of color, despite a renewed effort from the police union earlier this month to stall the changes.
San Francisco police officers will be required to limit enforcement of nine minor traffic infractions, unless they are accompanied by other infractions or more serious crimes.
Those include stops for a missing front license plate, recently expired registration tags, or a broken taillight. It also restricts officers from asking investigatory questions, or requesting to search a vehicle without reasonable suspicion or probable cause of criminal activity — and requires police to articulate such reasons if they do so.
“The data could not be more clear,” said Vice President Max Carter-Oberstone, who led the development of the policy over the past year and a half. He said that “mountains of evidence, studies from every corner of this country” show that similar restrictions on pretext stops have led to improvements in racial disparities in traffic stops, without increasing crime levels.
“The folks who have opposed this policy have not been able to point to one shred of actual evidence to support their position,” he said.
The commission began investigating limits on police stops after data showed officers disproportionately pull over Black and Brown people, stops that rarely result in criminal arrests or discovery of contraband.
Opponents to the policy, and the Police Commission in general, have taken to attacking the body for tying the hands of police, one of the bases for Mayor London Breed’s Proposition E, a measure on the March ballot seeking to limit the commission’s power.
Commissioner Kevin Benedicto, in his comments tonight, emphasized that the pretext stop policy is “a matter of prioritization, and not a matter of stopping enforcement or changing laws.”
Commissioners first approved the policy in a 4-2 vote in January 2023, then unanimously approved it in April with apparent support from Police Chief Bill Scott. But for more than a year, the policy has been in closed-door labor negotiations, known as “meet-and-confer,” with the police union that have produced little change to the document. Critics say meet-and-confer has been historically used to stall policies that the union dislikes.
In fact, police union president Tracy McCray wrote in her union newsletter that the union was resisting the policy, which she inaccurately referred to as a “wholesale abolishment.” In an October 2023 post, she wrote: “Apparently it’s going to be a downright fight with us as we will not rollover on any policy that jeopardizes our ability to get dangerous criminals off our streets.”
Earlier this month, the police union declared an impasse in negotiations, claiming the new pretext stop policy violates state law by instructing officers how to prioritize their traffic enforcement. The union alleged that the city is “prohibited” from implementing the policy changes until the “appropriate impasse procedures,” such as binding arbitration, are complete.
But this declaration seems to have had no effect; a deputy city attorney present at tonight’s vote did not advise the commission to refrain from its vote. The union, for its part, may sue, as it has done in the past over policies it disagrees with.
And, despite once voting in support of the policy, three mayor-appointed commissioners also put up a last-ditch effort to stall the policy tonight. Mayor London Breed has expressed her disapproval over limits on pretext stops.
Commissioner Debra Walker, who once voted for the limits and has been present at multiple meetings discussing them, asked tonight: “Can the commission actually tell the officers what to enforce and what not to enforce?” (The deputy city attorney present, Alicia Cabrera, declined to answer questions in public, but clarified again that the policy refers to “deprioritization.”)
Walker also suggested that the commission should not tell police “what to do,” although the commission is mandated by the city charter to set policy for the department. Ultimately, she, James Byrne and Larry Yee voted against the policy — the latter two insisting they wanted to confer with the City Attorney’s Office before voting.
Former commissioner Angela Chan, who now works with the Public Defender’s Office, condemned Walker and her colleagues’ sudden reservations in a public comment.
“The excuses that we’ve heard tonight, this last-minute dance and shuffle to try to stall this policy, is shameful,” Chan said, adding that the “nebulous and never-ending” meet-and-confer process was less egregious when she was on the commission.
The state is pursuing similar changes: In January, a new state law went into effect requiring officers who stop drivers to articulate the reason for the stop. Senate Bill 50, a proposal far more restrictive than San Francisco’s that failed to pass in 2023, aimed to prohibit police officers from stopping or detaining drivers for defined low-level infractions absent other reasons or multiple minor infractions.
Opponents to San Francisco’s policy pointed to SB 50’s failure as a reason why the commission should refrain from passing its own policy tonight. Others suggested that civilian commissioners don’t understand law enforcement and should not create policy.
“I keep hearing this fallacy, that these [policies] that we pass here are not vetted or don’t involve subject matter experts, when in fact, 99 percent of the [policies] that we get are drafted by the department,” said Commission President Cindy Elias.
In the case of the pretext stop policy, which the commission drafted, Elias noted that the police chief, command staff, various groups within the police department and organizations across the city were involved in its development.
As part of today’s vote, the police department was given 90 days to train officers on the new policy, with the option of a short extension.
more on pretext stops
Loading…
Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.
Just what SF needs – fewer traffic stops. You can’t make this up.
“missing front license plate, recently expired registration tags, or a broken tail light”
These aren’t pretexts. They are violations.
What the City needs is NO bs race-based stops; evidence and judgments against the City’s taxpayer show that’s what we’ll get. Sounds like these are crimes you want to capture the massive SFPD’s focus. As a taxpayer, I don’t want to pay for this kind of crap parading as policing.
Failing to use a blinker, OK, fine. But broken tail light needs to get a fix-it ticket. And I don’t understand how driving on expired tags is a minor infraction we should just stop enforcing. If you have expired tags, you likely have lapsed insurance as well. Your car should be impounded immediately until you sort it out.
Greg,
The point no one is making is that SFPD has recruited some serious goons through their Lateral Transfer Program that allows them to bypass our very excellent Police Academy.
These are the Racists who break out tail lights before the ‘subject’ even enters their vehicle and either wears no ID and has a mourning strip over his badge number and trades jackets with a cop on duty in some other precinct so it couldn’t have been him who roughed up one of Willie’s girlfriends and got caught and he was a Training Officer (Serna ?).
My point is that this is a carefully chosen Force that over the years has put some Cowboy/cowgirl Rogue Cops into positions of authority.
They can be righted with a real Police Chief.
One elected by the people.
But, a Mayor would have to give up Power to put that Charter Amendment on the Ballot and I don’t see any candidates suggesting that (Michael Hennessey’s Idea).
Don’t give these people who hate San Francisco Values more power and less accountability.
Bring back the Patrol Specials by the Hundreds !!!
h.
h.
I voted for Prop E, as everyone who cares about the city should. But I wish there was a way to vote to eliminate the Police Commission entirely. They are part of the problem, not the solution.
This ridiculous decision just shows how badly we need Prop E.
We have to stop the Police Commission from protecting criminals. That is not their role but they seem to think that it is.
Cho,
Unfortunately, in this case the cops are very often the criminals.
They want to get rid of paperwork so they won’t leave a paper trail of conflicting tales.
If we had a better force we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
We don’t.
Oh, we probably have over a thousand sworn cops who actually share the vibe describes this old hippie …
I don’t think all cops are bad by any means.
I just think that too many of the baddies are running the show.
Don’t give them more power and less accountability !!
Go Niners !! (Vegas still favors us for this year)
h.
Considering how unsafe the streets are in San Francisco, and considering how many pedestrian deaths have been reported even as the City attempts to structurally make streets safe, I think the police should be able to use all the tools at their disposal. As a bike rider and pedestrian in San Francisco since 1976, I have never seen such reckless driving in all that time as what is going on now.
I’ve been on these “unsafe” streets and public transportation since 1960. In 1962, I survived a free ride on the undercarriage of a J-Church train. My grandpa (SFPD 40 years) picked me up from Mission Emergency. In Y2K, I rode my bike through the Mission everyday to work before bike lanes. SF is a city where folks work together to live in freedom. Go somewhere else for a police state.
I see too many cars driving around without legitimate license plates. There should be more policing of those cars with missing plates. People with missing plates are usually up to no good.
Oh want a great idea. Let’s let people who have ZERO experience law enforcement tell police how they should do their jobs. This city needs more police who enforce the law, as well as judges who actually punish criminals. Crime is getting worse and worse in this city and this policy is just helps perpetuate the lawlessness going on here.
I’m a black man and a native of the City. This is the most ridiculous City policy (among others) that I have ever of. So, effectively you are telling me that young black and brown street thugs are too DUMB and STUPID to change a taillight or keep their cars properly registered LIKE THE REST OF US LAW ABIDING CITIZENS. The Police Chief should be screaming from Twin Peaks because this effectively removed the little respect his department had left. SF has continued to lower the bar for these animals who consistently victimized innocence at the hand of POLITICAL IGNORANCE!! Know this folks, more guns and drugs will be roaming the streets and more victims will result from this ridiculous political policy. I have decided to leave my home town as soon as possible. IT’S TOO LATE TO TRY AND TURN THINGS AROUND….just look at the streets critically the next time you’re out and about. And this is what the leadership comes up with. Sad 😔.
Fred Sanford? Really?
JE
Yes, really…
Fred —
How many “This is the big one!” jokes have you gotten?
JE
I don’t know why the police union even cares. There are so few actual traffic stops in this city and less every year if you look at Vision Zeros focus on the five data. It seems SFPD just doesn’t care to do any traffic enforcement and nobody is holding them accountable to do this part of their job. The only reason I can think of to fight this is that the rare occasions an SFPD officer does decide to do traffic enforcement are for other unrelated reasons to the traffic violation, which is exactly why pretext stops can quickly become racist.
Would it be possible to train police officers to be more circumspect as to when and how they do pretext stops….Yes..I think so, at least in SF. Worth a try. But Alex Vitale and others of his minds set would scoff. Police abolitionists still have some influence. Dear H, elected police chief: a bad idea. Elect a good mayor and get some practical police commissioners – that’s the best we can hope for.
Joe,
See if Will agrees with me cause he’s a stickler on the language but I’m guessing ‘Fred’ is an AI composite created from Moderate talking points.
And, in the Series, Fred Sanford is an ignorant, lazy, selfish and bigoted old man.
From my Home Town of St. Louis by the way where there is a street named ‘Fred Sanford’ on which ‘Redevelopment’ has destroyed every building.
Never met him but those who worked with him said, ‘Red Fox’ the Comic was nothing like the TV junkman.
h.