sfgov.org/dpa
415-241-7711
Department of Police Accountability
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 700
San Francisco, CA 94102
ANNUAL REPORT
2018
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY __________________________________________ 1
ABOUT OUR OFFICE ____________________________________________ 3
INVESTIGATION AND LEGAL TEAMS ______________________________ 4
Caseloads and Closure Goals _______________________________________________ 4
Keane Report ____________________________________________________________ 5
Investigation Findings _____________________________________________________ 5
NEW PROTOCOL FOR MEASURING SUSTAINED CASES _____________ 8
SUSTAINED CASE DISPOSITION: 18-MONTH STUDY ________________ 9
Reporting on Sustained Case Outcomes _____________________________________ 10
Analysis of Sustained Case Dispositions ______________________________________ 10
CASES OF NOTE ______________________________________________ 11
CONFIDENTIALITY ____________________________________________ 12
POLICY ______________________________________________________ 13
Executive Sponsor Working Groups _________________________________________ 13
Serious Incident Review Board _____________________________________________ 13
Body-Worn Camera Policy _________________________________________________ 14
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Accommodations ___________________________________ 14
Domestic Violence Victim Incident Report Release _____________________________ 14
COLLABORATIVE REFORM _____________________________________ 16
Officer-Involved Shooting Cases ____________________________________________ 16
Firearm Discharge Review Board ___________________________________________ 16
Independent Investigations Bureau __________________________________________ 17
AUDIT UNIT __________________________________________________ 17
MEDIATION __________________________________________________ 18
OPERATIONS ________________________________________________ 20
Civic Bridge Partnership __________________________________________________ 20
Data-Driven Capabilities __________________________________________________ 21
TRAINING ____________________________________________________ 22
OUTREACH AND STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT __________________ 23
STAFF _______________________________________________________ 25
APPENDIX ____________________________________________________ A
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Department of Police Accountability (DPA) has
undergone major changes since my appointment in
June 2017, focusing on progressing toward a
renewed vision of civilian police oversight in San
Francisco. In 2018, our investigative teams worked
diligently to address a backlog of cases from
previous years while opening 31% more cases than
in 2017. While the issues we have confronted are
numerous and complex, I believe the DPA is on
track to better serve its core missions of
investigation, mediation, policy reform, outreach,
and auditing over the next year.
Internal Reforms
I accomplished key internal reforms over the past
year, including restructuring the legal, investigation,
and mediation divisions. I implemented a new case
triage system and a team model for investigations
that resulted in a 39% reduction in the average time
to investigate cases and a 293% performance
improvement on completing sustained case
investigations within the DPA’s nine-month goal. We
have continued our work on the U.S. Department of
Justice Community Oriented Policing Services Collaborative Reform process and have made
progress in reshaping both our policy and auditing functions. Our legal division prepared for
changes to state public records request law under Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748,
which will enhance transparency. A highlight of the year was partnering with consulting firm
Slalom through the Civic Bridge program, which inspired comprehensive efforts to modernize
operations using technology and strategic planning.
Reporting
We have greatly simplified our weekly, monthly,
quarterly, and annual reports by removing duplicative
and obsolete information. More importantly, we have
continued to make our data more transparent and
accessible for public consumption and peer review.
One particularly successful accomplishment was the
creation of the digital Henderson Report, which greatly
simplified the internal process for notifying SFPD
commanding officers of new misconduct allegations.
By converting this mandatory process to a digital one,
the DPA eliminated thousands of pages of paper
waste per year and sped up the process for notifying
commanding officers of potential misconduct within
their ranks.
Photo by Ben Gebo
2
Staffing
One of my highest priorities has been to fill
our vacant positions, especially the long
vacant investigator positions, and to
restructure our personnel and workflow. In
February 2018, we were finally able to hire
five new investigators, which greatly
contributed to a reduction in caseloads. To
fulfill our new audit responsibilities, we worked
with the Office of the Controller to build an
Audit Team. Additionally, I hired a senior
business analyst to manage a major overhaul
of our IT infrastructure. We also increased the
size of the mediation and outreach team from
one person to three people. This contributed
to a spike in complaints as more people
learned about our agency through our
tremendous outreach efforts and through
newly translated outreach materials.
L
ooking Ahead
In the coming year, the DPA plans to build on
the success achieved in 2018 by
implementing a new Case Management
System, modernizing the web portal for
making online complaints, publishing real-time
data on our website, finalizing our Strategic
Plan, fulfilling record requests under new state
law (Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748),
participating in the implementation of a
Serious Incident Review Board, completing
our first audit of SFPD, and hosting a regional
executive symposium on emerging issues in
California civilian oversight. The DPA is also
working on a strategic plan to align all projects
with the agency’s mission and develop a
framework for measuring success year over
year.
We have a great many projects under way. I
am very excited about this new direction and
look forward to continuing to work with the
San Francisco Police Commission to make
the DPA as successful as possible.
Paul Henderson
Executive Director
3
ABOUT OUR OFFICE
The Department of Police Accountability (DPA) is the independent and impartial oversight
agency responsible for investigating complaints against San Francisco Police Department
(SFPD) officers, investigating SFPD officer-involved shooting incidents, providing policy
recommendations, and conducting
biannual performance audits. The DPA
has investigated and mediated
complaints about officers and SFPD
policy since 1983. Information learned
during investigations and audits allows
the DPA to make policy
recommendations to the Police
Commission and the SFPD.
The DPA provides a safe space for
people to share their experiences and
communicate the impact that police
contact can have on vulnerable and
economically underserved
communities. The DPA is a lifeline for
many community members during their
worst moments. At a time when the
public desires a path toward justice and
equity, civilian oversight can bridge
gaps between law enforcement and the communities they serve.
Even when investigations do not reveal misconduct, the DPA fulfills an important role for the
City by focusing attention on making community experiences transparent and by developing
policies. Contact with the DPA gives community members an opportunity to be heard and to
know that the City cares about fairness in the policing process. Hearing about pain points
from the community also influences the DPA’s outreach and education efforts and can lead to
policy change at the SFPD.
In addition to having a significant impact
on individual lives, the DPA is in a
unique position to effect change across
the SFPD by enabling stakeholders to
make data-driven decisions. The DPA is
the steward of a vast amount of data,
including investigative outcomes and
audit findings. With the proper technical
tools, the DPA will begin publishing and
interpreting its data in new ways that are
both meaningful and understandable to
stakeholders and the public.
The Department of Police Accountability
provides independent and impartial
oversight of the San Francisco Police
Department through investigations, policy
recommendations, and performance audits
to ensure the City reflects the values and
concerns of the communities it serves.
4
INVESTIGATION AND LEGAL TEAMS
This year, the investigation and legal teams brought renewed focus to improving investigative
efficiency and internal collaboration. Development and implementation of new team models
and case triage systems resulted in a 39% reduction in the average time to investigate all
cases and a 293% performance improvement for meeting the DPA’s 9-month goal for
completing sustained case investigations.
Investigative teams also worked diligently to address the
remaining backlog of cases from previous years while
opening 31% more cases than in 2017. Under the new
team-based model, investigators and lawyers worked
closely together from the time complaints were filed
through the investigation and closure of each case. This
helped the DPA identify complex issues requiring extensive
investigation early on, a technique for avoiding backlogs.
Caseloads and Closure Goals
The DPA opened 659 new cases and closed 609 cases, many of which
had been pending for years. In 2017, a backlog of cases dating back to
2011 were still open and pending. By the end of 2018, all 2011, 2012,
2013, and 2014 cases were closed. Only six active cases from 2015 and
2016 remained open, all of which had exceptions to the general one-year
time limit for investigations. Of cases opened in 2018 or earlier, 288 were
pending at the end of the year, 24% more than were pending at the close
of 2017. Of the 288 pending cases, 274 were opened in 2018, 9 were
opened in 2017, 3 were opened in 2016, and 2 were opened in 2015.
The most common complaints had
to do with officers failing to take
action or follow a rule (Neglect of
Duty), officers taking impermissible
action (Unwarranted Action),
officers behaving inappropriately or
making inappropriate comments
(Conduct Reflecting Discredit), and
officers using more force than was
called for in a situation
(Unnecessary Force).
On average, completing an
investigation took 158 days. Of the
609 cases closed in 2018, DPA
investigators completed 468 cases
(77% of cases) within the internal 9-
month goal, a 43% improvement
over the previous year.
14
14
73
218
352
795
952
1514
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Racial Slur
Sexual Slur
Discourtesy
Referrals and
Informational
Unnecessary Force
Conduct Reflecting
Discredit
Unwarranted Action
Neglect of Duty
Allegation Totals by Type
5
Twenty percent of cases, or 123 investigations, were completed
after the 9-month goal but within the general one-year deadline.
It took more than a year to close 18 cases (3% of cases), of
which 9 were exempt from the one-year deadline due to tolling.
Fifty nine percent of sustained cases were completed within the
9-month goal. The average caseload per investigator was 15
cases, compared with 18 cases during 2017. Investigator
caseloads are now aligned with industry best practices.
Keane Report
Each year, the DPA reports on the
progress of cases during the initial
investigation stage and the status
of open cases. At the end of the
year, the DPA had completed
intake on 616 of 659 cases from
2018 and had closed 389 cases, or
59%, of its 2018 cases, leaving
270, or 41%, of 2018 cases
pending. The full Keane Report is
available online.
1
Investigation
Findings
Of the 1524 allegations resolved,
116 were Sustained; 488 were
deemed Proper Conduct; 396
were deemed Unfounded; 174
were Not Sustained; 3 deemed
Supervision or Training Failure; 86
were Referred; 37 were
Informational; 70 were Withdrawn;
and 102 had No Finding. No
Finding outcomes occur when the
complainant does not provide
required evidence, the officer is
not reasonably identifiable, or the
officer retires or resigns before the
investigation concludes, which
precludes discipline.
1
https://sfgov.org/dpa/sites/default/files/DPA_2018_Keane_Report.pdf
Informational
37
Mediated
47
Merged
3
No Finding
102
Not Sustained
174
Policy Failure
2
Proper
Conduct
488
Referral
86
Supervision or
Training
Failure
3
Sustained
116
Unfounded
396
Withdrawn
70
Findings
6
7
Sustained Cases
Sustained cases have at least one proven allegation of misconduct. The DPA sustained 49
cases out of 546 investigated cases, resulting in a 9% sustained rate. Of the 49 sustained
cases, DPA investigators closed 29 sustained cases (59% of sustained cases) within the 9-
month goal, a 293% improvement over the previous year. Nineteen sustained cases closed
within the general one-year deadline. The DPA took more than a year to close 1 sustained
case that was exempt from the one-year rule.
Of the 116 sustained findings, 95 were Neglect of Duty; 9 were Conduct Reflecting Discredit;
8 were Unwarranted Action; 3 were Unnecessary Force; and 1 was Sexual Slur.
1
3
8
9
95
0 20 40 60 80 100
Sexual Slur
Unnecessary Force
Unwarranted Action
Conduct Reflecting
Discredit
Neglect of Duty
Sexual
Slur
Unnecessary
Force
Unwarranted
Action
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Neglect of
Duty
Sustained Allegations by Type
8
NEW PROTOCOLS FOR MEASURING
SUSTAINED CASE FINDINGS AT THE DPA
In an ongoing commitment to increase transparency and disseminate accurate data, the DPA
updated its method for calculating the rate of cases with sustained, or substantiated,
misconduct. The DPA undertook an internal review and best practices examination before
implementing this change. Two relevant west coast agencies were examined: Oakland’s
Community Police Review Agency (CPRA) and Portland’s Independent Police Review
Division (IPR). These agencies differ from the DPA in their number of investigators and the
size of their jurisdictions. However, they follow oversight models similar to the DPA’s in that
each agency employs civilian investigators to conduct administrative investigations when
members of the public allege misconduct by local law enforcement.
The DPA learned that, while IPR and CPRA investigate all allegations that are submitted,
they only include certain types of investigations when
determining their sustained rates. This information
prompted the DPA to reevaluate its current standards
for measuring sustained rates.
The DPA’s investigations result in one of ten possible
findings. Typically, the DPA’s cases that result in a
finding of “Information Only” are complaints where the
DPA determines that the alleged misconduct involves a
non-SFPD officer or a non-sworn SFPD employee.
Since the DPA’s jurisdiction is limited to sworn SFPD
officers, the DPA forwards misconduct complaints
involving non-SFPD officers to the appropriate agency
and renders an “Information Only” finding. “Information
Only” cases are typically closed within fifteen (15) days
of receiving the complaint and therefore require fewer
DPA resources than other investigations. Mediation
cases follow an alternative path and typically involve little investigation. When a case is
transferred to the mediation division, the underlying complaints are reviewed by the mediation
coordinator and resolved in independent sessions with trained mediators. Mediated cases
result in a finding of “Mediation.” In 2017, “Mediation” and “Information Only” investigations
accounted for nearly 20% of the DPA’s cases. In 2018, “Mediation,” “Information Only,” and
“Withdrawn” cases accounted for 10% of the DPA’s cases.
Because “Information Only” and “Mediation” cases are handled in a different manner than
complaints requiring full investigations, the DPA will no longer include them when determining
sustained rates for findings of officer misconduct. Additionally, cases where no findings were
reached due to a withdrawal will not be considered when calculating sustained rates. Similar
to CPRA, the DPA will calculate sustained rates based on the number of DPA complaints
involving a full investigation. This change in sustained rate calculation will enable the DPA to
more accurately measure and report on those cases that required a full investigation and DPA
determination concerning police misconduct.
9
SEE APPENDIX A FOR CASE DETAILS
In 2018, the DPA closed 609 cases, of which 23 were mediated and 40 were referred for lack
of jurisdiction, voluntarily withdrawn, or purely informational. Subtracting the mediated,
referred, withdrawn, and purely informational cases brought the DPA’s investigated and
closed case total to 546 cases. Of the 546 investigated cases, the 49 sustained cases
represent a 9% sustained case rate for 2018. In comparison, the 2018 sustained case rate for
Portland’s IPR was 3.2% (CPRA’s sustained rate was unavailable as of this report’s
publication).
ADJUDICATION AND DISPOSITION OF
SUSTAINED CASES: JULY 2017 THROUGH
DECEMBER 2018
When misconduct is proven, the DPA Director sends investigation
results and discipline recommendations to the Chief of Police. The
DPA Director and Chief of Police discuss any case where the Chief
disagrees with the DPA’s findings and discipline recommendations.
Although the DPA makes independent investigative findings and
disciplinary recommendations, only the Chief of Police and the Police
Commission have the power to
impose
discipline.
For cases warranting discipline of a 10-day suspension or less, the
Chief of Police has the primary authority to discipline officers. If the
Chief of Police does not agree with the DPA’s findings or disciplinary
recommendations for cases involving a 10-day suspension or less,
there is no process for the DPA to appeal to the Police Commission.
10
The DPA may only file charges with the Commission if an officer’s misconduct warrants
discipline greater than a 10-day suspension.
Reporting on Sustained Case Outcomes
The DPA published its first ever analysis of disciplinary outcomes
for sustained cases in the third quarter of 2018. This type of report
is part of an overall effort to increase transparency around
investigations and discipline.
Because disciplinary recommendations
and decisions exist as paper records,
this analysis was accomplished through
a manual review of each investigative
report and with the help of staff from the
SFPD’s Legal Division. Outcomes for several cases are marked
as “Unknown.” This occurred most often when the SFPD was
unable to locate records to provide the outcome of discipline for
a case.
The disciplinary process can extend over several months if an
officer appeals a disciplinary decision. Because many
investigations completed in 2017 were decided in 2018, the reporting period for this
analysis is July 1, 2017December 31, 2018. See Appendix A for the full Disposition
Report.
Analysis of Sustained Case Dispositions
The DPA concluded that a preponderance of the evidence supported a
finding of misconduct in 79 cases during the reporting period. In total,
the DPA sustained 170 allegations against 130 officers. For each
officer, the DPA made disciplinary recommendations tailored to the
severity of the conduct and the officer's individual disciplinary history.
Recommendations were based on Commission-approved discipline
guidelines. All cases were forwarded to the Chief of Police for
disciplinary decisions.
The DPA analyzed whether the Chief
agreed with the DPA’s sustained
findings and whether the Chief adopted
the DPA’s recommended discipline
over an 18-month period. Although the
DPA recommends specific discipline for
each officer, only the Chief and
Commission have the power to impose
discipline. The DPA found that the
Chief agreed with 81% of the DPA’s
sustained findings and disagreed with
1%. The Chief’s decisions for 18% of
cases were unknown as of this report’s
publication. Because the DPA does not
81%
1%
18%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Agreed Disagreed Unknown
Did the SFPD Chief agree with the
DPA's sustained findings?
11
Same
40
68%
Higher
2
3%
Lower
9
15%
Appeal
pending
8
14%
In the 39% of cases with known
discipline, was the discipline higher,
lower, or the same as the DPA's
recommended discipline?
*Findings of “no discipline” include oral admonishments and
retraining, outcomes that legally do not qualify as discipline.
impose discipline, the DPA’s records are dependent on the SFPD providing these records.
CASES OF NOTE
Officer-Involved Shootings
When an officer-involved shooting (OIS) occurs, the
DPA is notified of the occurrence, responds to the
crime scene, and conducts an immediate investigation.
While officer-involved shooting investigations are
tailored to the specific needs of each case, the DPA
routinely examines the incident location, canvasses for
witnesses, gathers documentary evidence, and
interviews witnesses and officers. The DPA attends the
town hall meeting held by the SFPD after an OIS and,
in some cases, meets with community groups and
leaders to hear specific concerns.
In 2018, the DPA opened five officer-involved shooting cases and closed six, many of which
began in previous years. In 2018, the DPA initiated investigations into the officer-involved
shootings of Jesus Adolfo Delgado-Duarte, Jehad Eid, and Oliver Barcenas.
The DPA also investigated two officer-involved shootings involving moving vehicles. The DPA
continued to investigate nine other officer-involved shooting incidents from previous years.
Discipline
47
39%
No
Discipline *
50
42%
Unknown
23
19%
Did the SFPD Chief
impose discipline?
12
In 2018, the DPA created specialized trainings for officer-involved shooting investigations and
planned a pilot program for forming a team of investigators with specialized training.
Other Investigations of Note
The DPA investigated the arrest of a juvenile girl on Market Street. The complaint accused
law enforcement officers of using excessive force in apprehending the girl. The DPA received
a complaint regarding the arrest of a Bay Area activist. The DPA concluded its investigation of
a complaint regarding an officer who obstructed a skateboarder, causing the skateboarder to
fall and sustain serious injuries. The DPA concluded its investigation into a complaint
regarding video footage published by NBC Bay
Area that showed a plainclothes SFPD officer
threatening individuals with deportation. At the end
of 2018, the DPA continued to investigate a
complaint regarding racist and homophobic text
messages by members of the San Francisco Police
Department.
Mediations of Note
A man complained about being detained while
visiting a police station. He explained that the
ordeal had left him traumatized and fearful of law
enforcement. During the mediation, a supervising
officer explained the measures put in place to
ensure officer safety and apologized for his unit
detaining the complainant. The supervisor indicated
that the detention should not have occurred. The
complainant and officer had a meaningful discussion regarding their cultural differences and
their miscommunication regarding the purpose of the complainants visit to the district station.
In another case, a person complained that an officer was rude while interviewing her for a
police report. During the mediation, the officer acknowledged and apologized for his prior
unpleasant demeanor. The officer explained that he had just finished investigating an incident
involving trauma. He also discussed the overall nature of his job, wherein officers respond to
several calls per day, each involving varying degrees of seriousness. The officer indicated
that he would be more mindful of his communication with complainants when responding from
call to call.
CONFIDENTIALITY
In general, California law requires any police officer personnel
records, including any records relating to complaints against police
officers, to be kept confidential. Starting in 2019, certain police
officer personnel records and records relating to specified incidents,
complaints, and investigations involving police officers may be
made available for public inspection pursuant to the California
Public Records Act.
The DPA publishes a “Know Your Rights” Brochure
for Youth, which can be found online at
https://sfgov.org/dpa/youth.
13
POLICY
While disciplining individual officers is an essential component of law enforcement
management, changes to police policies and practices directly impact the entire police force
and the community it serves. The San Francisco City Charter requires the Department of
Police Accountability to present quarterly recommendations concerning SFPD's policies or
practices that enhance police-community relations while ensuring effective police services.
Policy Director Samara Marion led the DPA’s policy work.
Executive Sponsor Working Groups
The DPA participated in the SFPD's Executive Sponsor Working Groups,
which addressed policies and practices concerning the use of force and
accountability within the complaint and disciplinary processes, biased policing, and
tasers. The DPA also continued its partnership with community-based organizations
and the SFPD to enhance language access services, create a Deaf and Hard of
Hearing Department General Order and advance the work of the Crisis Intervention
Team Working Group.
Serious Incident Review Board
The DPA made multiple recommendations regarding the SFPD’s policies
and procedures following serious Use of Force incidents. The DPA has
long advocated for the SFPD to evaluate officer-involved shootings by considering
officer tactics and decision-making preceding uses of deadly force. In 2016, the
Commission adopted this long-standing recommendation by revising Department
General Order 5.01, Use of Force. The SFPD is now required to examine officer
tactics and decision-making leading up to
all
uses of force. This year, to address the
practical matter of implementing the new use of force evaluation standards for
officer-involved shootings, the DPA recommended implementing a Serious Incident
Review Board to replace the current Firearm Discharge Review Board (FDRB). This
change would enable review of a broader range of force incidents. The DPA
reaffirmed its long-held position that SFPD's Training Division provide written
analysis of tactical, training, and weapon-related issues to the FDRB for any incident
under review. The DPA also made the following recommendations to provide a more
robust review of force incidents consistent with best practices and Department of
Justice findings:
Review of officer-involved shootings, in-custody deaths, and other
force incidents be expanded to include analysis of the policy,
training, and tactics that may have contributed to the incident;
Expansion of information provided to the Police Commission and
the public about Use of Force incidents and investigations and
recommendations that result from the Review Board’s
consideration;
Creation of a Serious Incident Review Board working group with
representatives from the Police Commission, the SFPD, the DPA,
and community stakeholders. The working group should make
site visits to the Seattle Police Department and Los Angeles
Police Department.
14
Body-Worn Camera Policy
Currently, officers are required to activate their body-worn cameras during
detentions, arrests, and consensual encounters when speaking with a
person who may have knowledge of criminal activity. Through complaint
investigations, the DPA has documented multiple incidents where officers either
failed to activate their body-worn cameras as required or activated their cameras
late, causing the loss of critical evidence. Late activation occurred in several
incidents where officers did not anticipate an encounter becoming a detention and in
two critical incidents where officers were responding to reports of a crime in
progressthe officer-involved shootings of Keita O’Neil and Nicholas Flusche.
Officers also did not activate body-worn cameras during the May 11
th
officer-involved
shooting on the 1500 block of O’Farrell Street.
To minimize mistakes and late activation, the DPA recommends that DGO 10.11 be
revised to require officers to activate their cameras when responding to calls-for-
service. This change would enable officers to record and preserve evidence of
incidents such as consensual encounters that evolve into detentions or arrests.
Deaf and Hard of Hearing Accommodations
During the second quarter, the DPA continued its work on enhancing police
protocols for Deaf and Hard of Hearing individuals. In November 2017, the
DPA brought together a group of community stakeholders including deaf individuals to
draft a Department General Order (DGO). The DPA
initiated this project because of DPA complaint
investigations involving deaf complainants, in addition
to concerns raised within the Language Access
Working Group about deaf domestic violence
survivors receiving inadequate services.
Meeting monthly, the Working Group researched best
practices, drafted a proposed DGO and created an
officer reference guide for use during traffic stops.
The Working Group also identified different
technologies to assist SFPD officers at the station and
in the field to communicate with Deaf and Hard of
Hearing individuals. Representatives from SFPD have
also attended the Working Group and contributed to
the proposed DGO and officer reference guide.
In May, the DPA and Commander David Lazar met with Chief William Scott to brief
him on the progress of the Deaf and Hard of Hearing Working Group, to request
funding authorization for videoconferencing through officers’ cell phones for American
Sign Language interpreters, and to create an officer training video to accompany the
roll-out of the Department General Order.
Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault
Victim Incident Report Release
The DPA also made policy recommendations to ensure that victims of
domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking, stalking, and elder abuse
15
obtain their incident reports within five days of their requests as mandated by Family
Code §6228. The DPA recommended that the SFPD implement a system that
provides victims their incident reports within the statutory deadline, provides related
information on SFPD’s website, monitors compliance with the statutory deadline, and
reports to the Police Commission on a quarterly basis. Following April hearings
before the Board of Supervisor’s Public Safety Committee on the treatment of sexual
assault survivors, the DPA attended monthly meetings with community stakeholders
and made recommendations to enhance District Stationsservices for sexual assault
survivors that included the following:
Require officers to use interview rooms for report-taking and
interviewing to provide privacy to sexual assault reportees;
Provide sexual assault reportees a copy of “Your Rights as a
Survivor of Sexual Assault” prior to any interview or report-
taking (Penal Code section 679.04);
Comply with Penal Code section 679.04’s
mandate that a sexual assault survivor may
have a victim advocate and support person
present during interviewing and report-
taking at District Stations;
Inform a sexual assault survivor that the
SFPD can conduct the interview and take
the report at SF Women Against Rape’s
office;
Use a certified bilingual officer, employee,
or professional interpreter in all
communications with Limited English
Proficient (LEP) sexual assault reportees,
including while interviewing and report-
taking.
Provide easily locatable information about
sexual assault survivors' rights and
resources on the SFPD’s website.
Visit the DPA’s website for more information on the
DPA’s 2018 and archived policy recommendations.
16
COLLABORATIVE REFORM
The DPA continued efforts to work with the SFPD on the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ)
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Collaborative Reform Process. In February
2018, the California Department of Justice assumed responsibility for collaboratively
evaluating and reporting on ongoing reforms and the implementation of the DOJ’s 272
recommendations to the SFPD, over 70 of which involve DPA participation. The DPA
prioritized its focus on reforms related to Officer-Involved Shooting (OIS) investigations, the
Firearms Discharge Review Board, and the working relationship between the DPA and the
SFPD.
Officer-Involved Shooting (OIS) Cases
Starting in July 2016, Proposition D charged the DPA with investigating all officer-involved
shootings resulting in death or injury. By the end of 2018, the DPA had addressed a backlog
of OIS cases by closing 6 of 15 open OIS investigations, some of which were several years
old. The OIS caseloads and closure rates were the highest in the DPA’s oversight history.
The DPA productively worked with the SFPD on improving notification of on-call staff when
such shootings occur and regarding procedures for participation in on-scene briefings at
shootings. These improvements allow the DPA to canvass for witnesses immediately after a
shooting and to more promptly assess investigative needs.
I
ndependent Investigations Bureau
The DPA collaborated with the District Attorney’s Independent Investigations Bureau (IIB)
regarding the procedures for taking and storing compelled statements from officers, as
recommended by DOJ (Recommendation 18.3). The DPA provided a training for IIB
explaining how the DPA’s files are organized, the laws pertaining to their access, and the
DPA’s investigative procedures. The DPA also changed the advisements provided to officers
during questioning to make a clearer record as to which statements were compelled. Finally,
the DPA entered into a memorandum of understanding with IIB formalizing the way the
agencies work together and share information.
17
AUDIT UNIT
The DPA is responsible for biannual
audits of police use of force practices
and disciplinary outcomes for officer
misconduct cases.
Passed by voters in November 2016,
Proposition G amended the City
Charter, Section 4.136(k), and requires
the DPA to conduct a performance audit
or review every two years of police
officer use-of-force practices and
SFPD’s handling of claims of officer
misconduct. As the DPA began building
its own audit capacity, the DPA
engaged the Controller to perform an
audit on its behalf. After consulting the
DPA and reviewing the U.S. Department
of Justice’s assessment of the SFPD,
the Controller decided to audit the
accuracy and completeness of the
SFPD’s calendar year 2017 use-of-force
reporting.
There are significant differences in the
purpose, scope, methodology, and
outcomes of this audit and the reports
the SFPD produces to fulfill the
requirements of the San Francisco
Administrative Code, Chapter 96A. In
2018, the Controller’s Audits Division
was actively collecting sufficient and
relevant evidence to reach conclusions
on the accuracy and completeness of
the SFPD’s reported use-of-force data.
The final audit report will be published in
2019 and will provide objective
analyses, findings, and conclusions,
contribute to public accountability, and
assist management and those charged
with governance and oversight in
initiating any necessary corrective
action.
18
MEDIATION
Mediation is an essential component of
the DPA’s work as it allows direct
communication between officers and the
public. With the assistance of skilled
mediators, citizens and officers can
engage in meaningful exchanges of ideas
and experiences. Community members
are affected by encounters with officers
and the mediation team strives to
substantially improve interactions
between the two groups. Mediation offers
a tangible way for community members
to participate in the accountability process, to feel heard, and to be a part of changing
perspectives and relationships.
The Department of Police Accountability’s award-winning mediation program underwent
significant change this year, reaching the highest staffing level in DPA history by expanding to
two employees in April 2018, including Mediation Director, Sharon Owsley, and Mediation
and Programs Coordinator, Chanty Barranco. The team worked on developing its first-ever
strategic plan with the goals of creating public value, effecting system change, and continuing
to be recognized as a model for the delivery of high-quality and impactful mediation services
for the SFPD and the community.
The team’s initial priorities were to clear a case backlog, identify experienced and skilled
mediators, and inform those mediators of the new administration and changes in protocol. To
start the summer, the mediation program launched the DPA’s inaugural Mediation Forum to
current and prospective mediators. Over 100 people from across the Bay Area attended. The
event kicked off with a keynote presentation honoring the
achievements of the former Mediation Coordinator and
highlighting the new program goals and opportunities for
mediators to become more involved with the DPA’s outreach
efforts. Mediators also heard from Deputy Director Erick
Baltazar, who provided a briefing on the investigation process,
and Denise Asper of the United States Court of Appeals for
the Ninth Circuit, who discussed Restorative Justice based on
the Mediation model. Finally, the team introduced a new
training series for DPA mediators and discussed qualifications
and logistics. The DPA began receiving new mediator
applications immediately following the event. Many applicants
were also interested in participating in the DPA’s outreach
opportunities.
After reviewing national mediation best practices, Ms. Owsley instituted several changes to
the mediation program. The DPA mediation team began observing all mediations to ensure
that high-quality services were consistently delivered and that procedural justice principles
were followed. The new practice of observing mediations enhanced the team’s ability to
insightfully pair mediators with complainants and the issues they present, as the team
19
became more attuned to each mediators skills and strengths. Another significant change was
that the mediation coordinators greatly expanded the briefings given to complainants and
officers on the purpose of mediation, the rules of engagement, and the good faith
expectations for both sides.
Mediation is a voluntary process and cases are subject to a screening process to determine
officer eligibility. With the new team in place, the DPA redirected for investigation a backlog of
cases that were considered for mediation and deemed ineligible. In 2018, 4% of cases were
mediated. Throughout the year, a total of 75 prospective cases were evaluated for mediation.
Of the 75 cases considered, 23 cases were mediated. At the end of the year, the DPA
mediation team continued to strive for participation and worked on plans to expand the
program using restorative justice principles throughout the complaint process.
20
OPERATIONS
The DPA worked to modernize
its technology infrastructure to
enable the efficient processing
of an increasing caseload, the
publication of meaningful and
useful data, and the use of data-
driven capabilities. Through new
staff and strategic partnerships,
the DPA began a digital
transformation by reenvisioning
its case management system
and website.
Civic Bridge Partnership
Slalom Consulting donated $120,000 of consulting services to the DPA through the Office of
Civic Innovation’s Civic Bridge Fall 2018 cohort. The goal of the engagement was to outline a
technology framework to support the DPA’s mission. The team created a journey map to
reexamine the experience of complainants, how the DPA accomplishes work, and challenges
with the existing workflow. The DPA had not undertaken this type of business analysis in over
20 years. The collaboration resulted in an outline of a case management plan that would
empower team collaboration, enable automated reporting, support data-driven capabilities,
track internal performance, identify patterns to support policy recommendations, and manage
21
complainant interaction. At the end of 2018, the DPA used the outline to publish a Request for
Quotes for a new case management system.
Operational Efficiencies
The Civic Bridge engagement went beyond providing case management system
recommendations by making a holistic assessment of the DPA’s needs. Through a journey
mapping process, Slalom Consulting identified five high-impact solution areas for success,
setting up the DPA’s goals for 2019.
The Impact of Data-Driven Capabilities
The DPA is the steward of a vast amount of police misconduct data spanning 36 years and is
in a unique position to share that data with the public. With updated information systems, the
DPA will be able to report on aggregate data and trends. Examples include changes and
fluctuations in the most common types of complaints received over time and the total number
of complaints by district over time. The DPA will also be able to publish information to the
City’s Open Data portal.
A modern case management system will also support DPA’s other core functions and
responsibilities related to transparency and accountability. The new system will enable the
DPA to:
Catalog cases more efficiently to comply with public records requests
under Senate Bill 1421 and Assembly Bill 748.
Support U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Community Oriented Policing
Services Collaborative Reform Process (COPS) recommendations
related to information sharing with SFPD’s Internal Affairs Division and
complaint transparency.
22
TRAINING
The DPA expanded internal training offerings and emphasized investigative skills training,
particularly regarding officer-involved shooting investigation techniques. This year, staff
attended several local and regional trainings on core investigative skills. The DPA also took
advantage of professional development opportunities through the City and with other
providers. For the first time in ten years, the front desk staff received training focused on
customer service. The DPA’s training program for new employees is a mix of external
trainings, internal trainings, shadowing, and on-the job experience. Toward the end of the
year, the DPA appointed staff attorney Stephanie Wargo-Wilson as the new internal director
of training. Ms. Wargo-Wilson will lead other attorneys who joined the DPA staff in 2018 in
providing specialized instruction to investigators on a regular basis.
St
aff Retreat
This year marked the first all-staff retreat in
ten years. The event was held at the
California Academy of Sciences. Denise
VanAlstine and Bobbi Lee of the San
Francisco Department of Human
Resources facilitated the retreat. Staff
members learned about the DiSC
Behavioral Styles Assessment model,
which teaches techniques for self-
assessment and for adapting one's
behavior to succeed in collaborative work
environments. Each staff member received
an individual assessment and learned
techniques for working with colleagues who
have different communication preferences.
Professional Development
New supervisors took the 24-PLUS training
for supervisors and managers The
clerical team received additional training on
Microsoft Word and Excel during the first
quarter The IS analyst received SQL
training The operations team took
PowerBI Training at the City’s Data
Academy The front-desk staff attended
Customer Focused Communication by
Denise Van Alstine
of DHR
SFPD Trainings
OIS-On Scene Management presented by
Sergeants John Crudo, Lyn O'Connor,
John Alden and Sarah Hawkins
I
nternal Staff Trainings
Recognizing Implicit Bias presented by
Dante King of DHR Annual Language
Access Ordinance Training presented by
2018 Summer Interns, M. Kennedy-Grimes
and M. Hammons Public Records
Training presented by Staff Attorney Diana
Rosenstein Emergency Preparedness
presented by Staff Attorney Tinnetta
Thompson LanguageLine Solutions
training on using audio and video
translation services presented by
LanguageLine Sunshine Ordinance
Training presented by Staff Attorney Diana
Rosenstein Comprehensive Crisis
Service training presented by DPH Director
Stephanie Felder Juvenile Jeopardy
Training presented by Lisa Thurau
Defusing Hostile Encounter Training
presented by Sergeant Kelly Kruger of the
Crisis Response Unit/Psychiatric Liaison
Unit GARE workshop presented by
Daniele Motley-Lewis and Candace
Carpenter Several investigators and
attorneys attended the AELE Law
Enforcement Legal Center Use of Force
Training
23
OUTREACH AND
STAKEHOLDER
ENGAGEMENT
This was a year of exciting change for the DPA’s outreach
division. Project Manager Danielle Motley-Lewis launched
a new outreach strategy and expanded the DPA’s access
to broader communities by updating outreach and
marketing materials, arranging for the new materials to be
translated into six target languages, and coordinating
training for front-line staff. These expanded outreach
efforts contributed to the 31% increase in complaints as
the DPA’s visibility increased within targeted communities.
Team Accomplishments
Through the University of California at Berkeley, the DPA hosted two public affairs and
outreach interns. The interns assisted in developing a social media strategy for the
DPA, engagement on Twitter, and the distribution of outreach materials to City
departments, affiliate partners, and SFPD district stations.
The DPA worked with the San Francisco Youth Commission to update the DPA’s
“Know Your Rightsbrochure for youth, expanding awareness of the DPA and its
services to persons 17 years of age and younger.
Staff engagement in the department’s outreach efforts increased greatly during the
year. This increase was attributable to the scheduling of more public safety related
events.
24
Community Outreach
Wellness Fair Mother’s Day Luncheon
Marina/Cow Hollow/Golden Gate Valley Public
Safety Forum Community Congress 2018 at
Bernal Heights Neighborhood Center San
Francisco Housing Expo Jordan Park Public
Safety Forum 2018 SF Pride Parade and
Festival Assemblymember David Chiu Town
Hall Shared Schoolyard and Supervisor
Stefani Public Safety Fair Sunday Streets,
Mission San Francisco 3 on 3 Youth Hoops
Tournament GARE Cohort Senior
investigators attended weekly Street Violence
Reduction Team meetings Senior
investigators attended Police Commission
meetings Policy Director Samara Marion
chaired monthly meetings for the Language
Access Working Group and regularly attended
the Crisis Intervention Team Working Group
DPA Project Manager Danielle Motley-Lewis
and 2018 Summer College Interns also
distributed updated outreach materials to all
SFPD Police District Stations and 22 Affiliate
Organizations
Mediation Outreach and Training
First Annual Mediation Forum DPA
Mediation Best Practices-Quarterly Forum and
Training
Student and Youth Outreach
The DPA Project Manager staffed
informational tables at the following
recruitment events: Public Interest/Public
Sector Day at Hastings Law School
University of San Francisco Law School
Spring On-Campus Recruitment Fair
Golden Gate University School of Law
The DPA Staff and 2018 Summer Interns
provided outreach at Ida B. Wells High
School
SFPD Trainings
Sarah Hawkins and John Alden
presented at the SFPD’s OIS-On Scene
Management training SFPD Academy
Instruction presented by DPA Operations
Manager Sara Maunder and Senior
Investigator Steve Ball
Executive Outreach
Director Henderson presented at the
2018 NACOLE Regional Training in Seattle,
WA Chief of Staff Sarah Hawkins and
Policy Director Samara Marion organized a
two-day onsite visit to Seattle Police
Department's Use of Force Unit, Crisis
Intervention Team, Force Investigations
Unit, and Policy and Audit Division and sat
in on the Use of Force Review Board
Director Henderson attended Police
Commission Community Meetings and gave
regular updates regarding the work of the
DPA Spring Recruitment Fair
25
DPA STAFF
Paul Henderson Sarah Hawkins Erick Baltazar Nicole Armstrong David Aulet
Steve Ball Brent Begin Chanty Barranco Kelly Benitez Helen Calderon
Christina Campany Candace Carpenter Janelle Caywood Natalie Chan
Christian Chisnall Kevin Comer Robert Deutsch Ellen Dolese Susan Gray
Pat Grigerek Eric Ho William Huey Gwen Lancaster Samara Marion Sara
Maunder Eric Maxey MaryAnn McCormick Danielle Motley‐Lewis Ashley
Nechuta Newton Oldfather Sharon Owsley Mary Polk Diana Rosenstein
Tessa Rudnick Alexandra Schultheis Elmer Sescon Matt Stonecipher Tinnetta
Thompson Pamela Thompson Teri Torgeson Carlos Villarreal LaDreena
Walton Stephanie Wargo‐Wilson
BLANK
PAGE
APPENDIX
A
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Misrepresenting the truth. Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Preparing an inaccurate
incident report.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to provide proper
translation services.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
Department Bulletin 13-
091, Traffic Stop Data
Collection Program
Information.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Preparing an inaccurate
incident report.
Agreed
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate comments
and behavior.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
incident report.
Agreed
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Issuing a citation without
cause.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
incident report.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
incident report.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to communicate
with dispatch.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
process property.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to communicate
with dispatch.
Agreed
Unwarranted
Action
Issuing a citation without
cause.
Agreed
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to communicate
with dispatch.
Unknown Unknown
W
ritten
Reprimand
Unknown
7
The complainant stated that he resigned
from the SFPD following his conviction on
several felony charges. The complainant
stated he requested that the named officer
retrieve the complainant’s personal property
from his Department locker at the station of
his last assignment. The officer who
retrieved the property failed to document or
record the process.
Officer 1
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate behavior. Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officer 26
The officers conducted a traffic stop of the
complainant without notifying dispatch. One
officer logged onto the other officers' MDT,
then left without logging off. Another officer
incorrectly wrote the date on the citation,
causing a dismissal. He also removed the
complainant's registration sticker, rendering it
unusable, and retained the sticker without
booking it, despite the fact that the
registration sticker was valid.
The complainants reported to 911 and to
responding officers an attempt by a motorist
to assault one complainant, a bicyclist, with
his vehicle. The victim complainant stated
the responding officers discouraged him from
filing a report and failed to prepare a required
incident report.
Written
Reprimand
None
Disciplined
3-Day
Suspension
3-Day
Suspension
3-Day
Suspension
3-Day
Suspension
Held in
Abeyance
for 3 Years
Officer 1
Officer certified in Cantonese improperly
interpreted for defendant who spoke
Toisanese, causing the improper translation
of crucial incriminating statements. A mother
was arrested and prosecuted because an
SFPD Cantonese interpreter mistranslated
multiple statements when interrogating her.
The inaccurate and erroneous confession
was documented in a police report, which led
to the mother's prosecution.
Disciplined
5
5-Day
Suspension
3-Day
Suspension
4
The officer cited the complainant for failure
to obey a posted sign prohibiting right-hand
turns. However, there were no posted signs
prohibiting the turn. The officer's field-training
officer did not review the citation prior to
issuance.
1
2
3
The complainant called police about a stolen
cell phone, then flagged down the named
officer. He said the named officer made
belittling remarks and refused to write an
incident report.
Officer 1 Not Disciplined
Officer 1
Officer did not properly investigate an
individual stopped for driving under the
influence. Officer did not accurately interpret
field sobriety tests and misrepresented the
results of the arrestee's breath test, which
were negative for alcohol, in the police
report. The misrepresentation caused the
administration of an unwarranted blood test
and prosecution.
Disciplined
AppendixA
Page1of9
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
8
The complainant stated the report did not
accurately reflect that the complainant was
properly operating his bicycle when an
automobile struck him. The report indicated
the driver who was operating the vehicle that
struck the complainant was making a left
turn when, in fact, the vehicle was making a
right turn. A street was also mislabeled as
the wrong street on the diagram attached to
the report. These errors are readily apparent
when reading the report and comparing it to
the diagram and other Department reports
and records.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Preparing an inaccurate
incident report.
Disagreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
9
Officer failed to treat the complainant and
the staff at a family service agency with
courtesy and respect when Officer
responded to two calls for service.
Officer 1
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate behavior
and comments.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate comments
and behavior.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
incident report.
Unknown
Neglect
of Dut
y
Failure to comply with
DGO 5.20.
Unknown
Neglect
of Dut
y
Failure to properly
investi
g
ate.
Unknown
Neglect
of Dut
y
Failure to comply with
DGO 5.20.
Unknown
Neglect
of Dut
y
Failure to properly
investi
g
ate.
Unknown
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate behavior. Unknown
12
Traffic stop for tail light violation, in which
officer did not properly enter eStop
information.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failed to take required
action - eStop
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
13
Complainant called Tenderloin Station to file
DPA complaint and officer refused to take
her complaint over the phone.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Violation of DGO 2.04 Agreed Disciplined
1-Day
Suspension
Written
Reprimand
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
accurate incident report.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
accurate and complete
incident re
p
ort.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
investigate.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
accurate and complete
incident report.
Agreed
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
investigate.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officer 1
Officers arrested an individual and searched
his car. The report documenting the incident
was inaccurate and one officer failed to
supervise a subordinate.
Officers searched a residence and took
custody of an individual. The report
documenting the incident was inaccurate and
one officer failed to supervise a subordinate.
14
16
Trainee and FTO responded to an assisted
living facility. Without an adequate
investigation, they handcuffed and removed
a deaf 72-year-old dementia patient.
Thereafter, they authored an inaccurate and
incomplete report.
15
11
Officer 2
Officer 1 Unknown
Unknown
Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
10
Officer failed to provide an LEP individual
with access to interpreter services during
the course of their investigation.
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officer 1
Three complainants in dispute with a
neighbor alleged an officer spoke
inappropriately and improperly forced them
to let a construction crew use their roof,
causing property damage. Additionally, the
officer failed to prepare an incident report.
Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
AppendixA
Page2of9
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand and
Retraining
None
Officer 2
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate comments
and behavior.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand and
Retraining
Written
Reprimand
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to take required
action.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand and
Retraining
None
Officer 4
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
18
Officer detained complainant and confiscated
his airline buddy pass ticket because the
officer thought it was stolen. However, the
officer did not issue a property receipt or
write an incident report.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
process property.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
19
Complainants attempted to provide
additional evidence to a stolen car report,
officer refused to accept the evidence.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
incident report.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate behavior. Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to take required
action - eStop
Agreed
21
Officer checked the wrong box on a traffic
report, erroneously opining that the
complainant was at fault for the accident.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Inaccurate incident
report.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
accurate and complete
report.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to supervise. Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Neglect
of Duty
Driving improperly. Unknown
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 5.01, Use of Force
Agreed
Officer 2
Unwarranted
Action
Detention without
justification.
Unknown Unknown
1-Day
Suspension
Unknown
24
Complainants demanded the arrest of a
"prowler." Officer found insufficient cause to
arrest. However, he should have written an
incident report.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 5.04
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 1
22
Officer failed to prepare a complete and
accurate report because he did not include
all relevant information in the report, cited
the incorrect Vehicle Code, failed to properly
document the vehicle tow, and failed to
complete all required forms. Officer failed to
supervise his subordinate by approving a
deficient report.
20
Officer parked his patrol car in a bus zone in
order walk across the street and issue a
parking citation to complainant, who was
dropping off a passenger in the bus zone.
He engaged in inappropriate behavior when
he parked in a bus zone while citing and
admonishing drivers for doing the same. He
also failed to make an eStop entry.
23
Officer inadvertently turned on BWC while
driving, which showed the officer driving at a
high rate of speed with coffee in one hand,
and a cell phone to her ear. Officer failed to
record the incident in the Use Of Force Log.
Officer improperly arrested complainant.
Complainant complained of injury related to
the arrest. Complainant's unlawful seizure
was prolonged by 50 minutes while officers
waited for a sergeant to arrive to conduct a
use of force investigation.
17
Officers investigating a report of a restraining
order violation made inappropriate
comments and yelled at the protected party.
The officers failed to take required action
and two officers failed to supervise
subordinates.
Officer 1 Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Unknown
1-Day
Suspension;
Admonishment
and Retraining
Unk
nown
AppendixA
Page3of9
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
25
Traffic stop for right turn on red. The named
officer failed to enter stop information.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
16-208, eStop
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
Department General
Orders 5.08 and 9.01
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
Department General
Orders 5.08 and 9.01
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 3
Unnecessary
Force
Unnecessary force. Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 4
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
Department General
Orders 5.08 and 9.01
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 5
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
Department General
Orders 5.08 and 9.01
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
27
Officer told civilians to, "Go back to [their]
country," during an investigation of a traffic
collision involving an SFPD vehicle.
Officer 1
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate comments
and behavior.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failing to prepare an
incident report.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failing to prepare an
incident report.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
29
Officer, while on 10B duty, detained
complainant after a merchant deemed him
"suspicious." Complainant admitted to
possessing medical marijuana. Officer
confiscated the marijuana and destroyed it
by stomping into the ground.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
process property.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
30 The officer towed a car without justification. Officer 1
Unwarranted
Action
The officer towed a car
without justification.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
investigate.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to write an
incident report.
Agreed
32
Officer failed to collect and enter e-stop data
after a traffic stop.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
16-208, eStop
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
33
Officers used force to take down and
handcuff the complainant. During the
investigation, one officer used profanity.
Officer 1
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate comments Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
34
Officer failed to notify a juvenile
complainant’s parent, after a detention
during a robbery investigation, that the
juvenile complainant was being detained.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Violation of DGO 7.01 Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
35
Officer failed to prepare an incident report
after investigating an incident involving
assault and battery.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to prepare an
incident report.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Writing an inaccurate
report.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
37
An officer and his cadet responded to a call
at a retail store regarding the complainant,
who was detained by store security for
shoplifting. The officer told the
complainant to, "Shut the fuck up."
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
The officer used
profanity.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 1
Plainclothes officers improperly conducted a
traffic stop without cause in violation of
applicable DGOs as a ruse to harass
complainant, who they previously arrested
but was released from custody.
26
36
The complainant's vehicle was stolen, then
recovered. The officer who recovered the
vehicle incorrectly wrote that the front plate
was "missing" on the incident report,
causing officers to stop the complainant and
family members on a later date, guns drawn.
28
Officers failed to write an incident report after
responding to a restaurant where the victim
reported being assaulted and the restaurant
vandalized by a juvenile who had left the
scene.
31 Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Complainant was threatened by an
individual at a coffee shop. The officer
investigated but did not question a key
witness and did not write an incident report.
AppendixA
Page4of9
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
Officer 1
Unwarranted
Action
Issuing a citation without
cause.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Unwarranted
Action
Issuing a citation without
cause.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
39 The officer issued a citation without cause. Officer 1
Unwarranted
Action
The officer issued a
citation without cause.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Neglect
of Duty
Neglect of Duty Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 5.15, Enforcement
of Immigration Laws
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 5.17, Policy
Prohibiting Biased
Policing
Agreed
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Biased policing based on
race and national
identity.
Agreed
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate comments
and behavior
Agreed
Discourtesy Profanity Agreed
Officer 1
Unwarranted
Action
Entering a residence
without cause.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Unwarranted
Action
Entering a residence
without cause.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to take required
action.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
42
Officers were flagged down because of a
fight in a bar. They stopped and investigated,
but one officer did not activate his BWC.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to take required
action - BWC
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate behavior
and comments.
Agreed
Unwarranted
Action
Handcuffing without
justification.
Agreed
Officer 2
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate behavior
and comments.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 5.03 and the 4th
Amendment
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 5.03 and the 4th
Amendment
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
44
Officers failed to verify the accuracy of a 290
registrant noncompliance list. They went to
complainants residence, ordered him out of
his home, and walked him, handcuffed,
through his apartment building to their
vehicle to run a 290 registration check, which
could have been done at their desks at the
station without the detention of the
complainant. Complainant was compliant
with his 290 registration requirements.
Therefore, the detention was unlawful.
43
Officers conducted a traffic stop. Detainee
advised she was LEP and needed a Spanish
interpreter. Officers thought detainee lied
about being LEP, handcuffed her and
threatened her with jail while waiting for a
Spanish speaking officer to arrive.
Officer 1 Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
41
Officers investigating a report of prior
possible child abuse entered alleged
disabled suspect's home without a warrant,
consent, or the presence of exigent
circumstances. Child was with his mother
and there were no other victims or weapons
suspected. Upon arrest, officer failed to bring
suspect's wheelchair.
40
The officer threatened to call immigration
authorities, engaged in biased policing
based on national origin, and made
inappropriate comments.
Officer 1
Officer
Resigned
5-Day
Suspension
38
The officers violated complainant's 4th
Amendment right by issuing him a citation for
sitting on a fire hydrant, which is not illegal.
Officer
Resigned
AppendixA
Page5of9
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
process property.
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
investigate.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
46 Traffic stop without stop data. Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failing to comply with DB
16-208, eStop.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
47
An officer drove his cruiser poorly without
activating sirens and lights.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Driving improperly. Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
48
An officer towed the complainant's car for
driving without a license and cited her for
driving in the wrong direction on a one-way
street. He failed to comply with tow policy
and procedures.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with,
DB 16-114 and 16-115,
Vehicle Tow Policy and
Procedure 14601/12500
CVC Enforcement
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
17-156, Body-Worn
Camera Mute Function
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
17-156, Body-Worn
Camera Mute Function
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
50
An officer investigating a physical altercation
failed to activate his body-worn camera.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
17-156, Body-Worn
Camera Mute Function
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with,
DB 16-208, eStop
contact data collection
program
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
16-115, Vehicle Tow
Policy and Procedure
14601/12500 CVC
Enforcement
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Unknown
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 4
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate behavior. Agreed
Unwarranted
Action
Failure to follow crowd
control policies
Agreed
Officer 1
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Disciplined
The complainant was accused of being
involved in a hit-and-run. The officers
stopped her, cited her, and towed her car. All
officers failed to comply with DGO 10.11 at
various times during this incident. One
officer failed to follow vehicle tow policy and
procedure or collect e-stop data.
51
52 Officer 1
Officer obstructed a skateboarder, causing
the skateboarder to fall and sustain serious
injuries.
45
Neighbor reported burglary. Officers failed to
investigate. Officers helped suspect break
into his ex-boyfriend's house. Homeowner
subsequently called again to report burglary
after watching ex-boyfriend destroy his
property on his NEST recorder.
An officer impounded the complainant's
vehicle even though he asked for a tow to
the mechanic. During the course of the
investigation, officers failed to document the
reason for muting their BWC.
49
3-Day
Suspension
Not Disciplined None
AppendixA
Page6of9
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Inaccurate and
incomplete incident
report.
Agreed
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 4
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
54
A man was assaulted at the airport. Police
refused to file a report.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to write an
incident report
Agreed Disciplined
3-Day
Suspension
1-Day
Suspension
55
Officers arrested a civilian and failed
to properly bag-and-tag his bicycle.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to take required
action
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
56
Officer conducted an illegal detention in
violation of DGO 5.03 and the 4th
Amendment of a person seated in a legally
parked vehicle after they observed an
individual jaywalk towards a parked car.
Officer 1
Unwarranted
Action
Detention Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Inaccurate citation. Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate comments. Unknown
Unwarranted
Action
Unlawful vehicle search. Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
16-208, eStop-Contact
Data Collection Program.
A
greed
59
The complainant was riding his bicycle when
a vehicle pulled into his path to try and park.
They collided and he was injured. The
complainant alleged that the responding
officer was inappropriate and wrote an
inaccurate incident report when he described
the driver as pulling out in front of him rather
than crossing into his path of travel.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Inaccurate incident
report.
Agreed Disciplined
3-Day
Suspension
1-Day
Suspension
60
Officer failed to properly investigate the
incident, failed to write a report and failed to
turn on his BWC.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 5.04,
Arrests by Private
Persons.
Agreed
Pending Chief's
Hearing
Written
Reprimand
Pending Chief's
Hearing
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
17-156, Body-Worn
Camera Mute Function
Agreed
Pending Chief's
Hearing
Written
Reprimand
Pending
Chief's Hearing
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
17-156, Body-Worn
Camera Mute Function
Agreed
Pending Chief's
Hearing
Written
Reprimand
Pending
Chief's Hearing
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
17-156, Body-Worn
Camera Mute Function
Agreed
Pending Chief's
Hearing
3-Day
Suspension
Pending
Chief's Hearing
58
An officer stopped the complainant and
cautioned him about behaving in a certain
manner when driving, particularly with his
child in the car. He failed to activate body
worn camera or collect eStop data.
Officer 1 Disciplined
3-Day
Suspension
1-Day
Suspension
61
Officers failed to document reason for muting
their BWC.
53
Officers stopped to investigate the
complainant when they saw a stun gun go
off. One officer failed to write a complete and
accurate report. Others activated their
BWC's late and/or muted their BWC without
properly documenting.
Officer 1
Officer 2
Officer indicated the wrong intersection on a
traffic citation. During the traffic stop,
officer also opened a passenger door
without any legal justification in violation of
the 4th Amendment.
57
Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Disciplined
3-Day
Suspension
Written
Reprimand
AppendixA
Page7of9
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 10.11,
BWC
Agreed
Pending Chief's
Hearing
Written
Reprimand
Pending Chief's
Hearing
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 10.11,
BWC
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Unnecessary
Force
Unnecessary force. Unknown
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to take required
action
Agreed
64
A man was arrested for fighting at Dolores
Park. He was injured during the arrest.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 4
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 5
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 6
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Offi
cer 7
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 3
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Neglect
of Duty
The FTO failed to
supervise.
Unknown
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to maintain radio
contact
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body Worn
Cameras.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly follow
vehicle pursuit policy.
Agreed
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Harassing the
complainant
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
17-156, Body-Worn
Camera Mute Function
Agreed
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with DB
17-156, Body-Worn
Camera Mute Function
Unknown Unknown
5-Day
Suspension
Unknown
69
Officers conducted a well-being check,
including a 5150 assessment, on the
complainant at her home. One officer failed
to activate his body worn camera.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Pending
Commission
Hearing
68
Two officers had an affair. One of the
officers harassed the other officer's wife with
phone calls and emails.
O
fficer 1 Disciplined
10-Day
Suspension
2-Day
Suspension
Officer 1
Officers chased a vehicle into a dead end.
When the suspect jumped out and ran, the
passenger officer fired through the window
and killed the suspect.
67
Pending
Commission
Hearing
40-Day
Suspension
66
63 Officer-involved shooting incident.
62
The officers were called for an assault and
battery. They failed to investigate, failed to
offer a citizen's arrest and failed to make an
arrest. The officers failed to turn on their
BWC.
Officer 1
Pending
Commission
Hearing
Termination
65
Officers failed to document reason for muting
their BWC.
Officers failed to activate their BWC while
executing a warrant and while detaining
civilians.
Pending
Commission
Hearing
AppendixA
Page8of9
DISCIPLINARY OUTCOMES FOR DPA SUSTAINED CASES
June 2017 - December 2018
Case Case Summary Officer
Allegation
Category
Allegation Description
Did SFPD Chief
Agree That
Misconduct
Occurred?
Did SFPD or
Commission
impose
discipline?
Description of
DPA Discipline
Recommendation
Description of
Discipline
Imposed on
Officer
Unwarranted
Action
Detention without
justification.
Agreed
Unwarranted
Action
Search of a person
without cause.
Agreed
Unwarranted
Action
Arrest without cause. Agreed
Officer 1
Unwarranted
Action
The officer issued an
invalid order
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
72
Officer referred to a civilian using a
pejorataive sexual slur out of earshot of the
civilian, but in the presence of subordinates.
Officer 1 Sexual Slur
Inappropriate comments,
including the use of a
sexual slur.
Agreed
Pending Officer
Appeal
3-Day
Suspension
Pending Chief's
Hearing
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
The officer behaved and
spoke inappropriately.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to write
an incident report (DGO
1.03
)
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 10.11,
BWC
Agreed
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 10.11,
BWC
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Conduct
Reflecting
Discredit
Inappropriate behavior
and comments.
Unknown
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 10.11,
BWC
Agreed
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 10.11,
BWC
Unknown Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to write an
incident report
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 10.11, Body-Worn
Camera
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
investigate.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to gather
evidence.
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 10.11,
BWC
Agreed
77
Officer failed to fully investigate the incident
and failed to write a report, which was
required since complainant requested a
citizen's arrest.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
comply with DGO 5.04,
Arrests by Private
Persons.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to comply with
DGO 9.02, Vehicle
Accidents
Agreed
Neglect
of Duty
Preparing an inaccurate
incident report.
Agreed
Officer 2
Neglect
of Duty
Failure to properly
supervise.
Agreed Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
79
The officer failed to provide her name and
star number upon request.
Officer 1
Neglect
of Duty
The officer failed to
provide her name and
star number upon
Agreed Not Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
None
Officer 1
None
3-Day
Suspension
5-Day
Suspension
None
Complainant sustained serious injuries after
a hit-and-run collision. Reporting officer
failed to relay description of suspect to
dispatch for dissemination and improperly
classified the incident as a misdemeanor
causing the Hit and Run Division not to
further investigate.
78
Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
76
The complainant reported that his neighbor
violated a restraining order. The officer failed
to properly investigate the incident. He did
not detain the suspect, interview witnesses
or view security footage.
Officer 1 Disciplined
Written
Reprimand and
Retraining
Written
Reprimand
75
A taxi driver was assaulted and police did
not write a report.
Officer 1 Disciplined
Written
Reprimand
Written
Reprimand
74
Officers failed to activate their BWC when
responding to a collision resulting in a
citation and tow, in violation of Department
General Order 10.11. One officer also failed
to treat a member of the public with courtesy
and respect, in violation of Department
General Order 2.01.
Officer 1 Unknown
Written
Reprimand
Unknown
Officers investigated a reported fight and
trespasser, issued an invalid order, and
failed to activate BWC.
71
Officer 1
Two officers were called for an assault and
battery. The officers failed to investigate,
receive a private person's arrest, and write
an incident report. The FTO was rude to the
complainant. The officers failed to turn on
their BWC.
73
Not Disciplined
70
Officer detained, searched, and arrested an
individual without cause, in violation of DGO
2.01 and the 4th Amendment.
Officer 2 Not Disciplined
AppendixA
Page9of9
25 Van Ness Avenue, Suite 700
www.sfgov.org/dpa