📋
Extracted from Consolidated Report

This investigation was originally published as part of a larger consolidated report containing multiple investigations. View the consolidated PDF for the complete document.

San Francisco County Grand Jury • 2018-2019

Required Responses

43 pages
View PDF View Full Original

Findings 8 findings

F1 Page 18
The 2007 MOU providing for JTTF participation expired by operation of the CCSF Charter. The Chief of Police agreed the MOU must be revised for it to be approved by the PC. The Chief acknowledged the concern of civil liberties groups to include oversight that is more transparent.
F2 Page 18
Communication and coordination between SFPD and federal authorities is less efficient and more cumbersome than when SFPD was part of the JTTF.
F3 Page 18
In the period of 2002-2017 SFPD participated on the JTTF, few formal complaints were made against officers conducting JTTF activities.
F4 Page 18
The Civil Grand Jury’s investigation did not detect any instance of non-compliance with a DGO by SFPD officers that had been assigned to the JTTF. Likewise, this investigation did not find any evidence that SFPD officers assigned to the JTTF were engaged in any form of enforcement associated with federal immigration laws.
F5 Page 18
The secrecy obligations of SFPD officers in the JTTF require officers not disclose the classified material to individuals without an appropriate level of clearance and a need to know. These secrecy obligations are necessary but allow or cause speculation and concern by parties without access to classified material. Police Commission Findings
F6 Page 18
The PC is an essential party to SFPD’s future participation in the JTTF. The PC has the authority to bring any proposed MOU and any related DGO up for discussion and public comment at an open meeting. In addition, the Chief of Police is required to provide them a public report every year with appropriate public information on the Police Department’s work with the JTTF.
F7 Page 18
Presently, the PC does not have a representative for JTTF matters. It would be beneficial to have a designated commissioner as a point of contact for all parties interested in this issue. DGO 8.10 Findings
F8 Page 18
SFPD DGO 8.10 was described as confusing and ambiguous by several law enforcement witnesses. It does not contain clear and concise wording and references are inaccurate. In order for SFPD officers to comply with DGO 8.10, it needs to be revised and updated.

Recommendations 5