⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings 8 findings
F1
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
Communication and coordination between SFPD and federal authorities is less efficient and more cumbersome than when SFPD was part of the JTTF.
F3
In the period of 2002-2017 SFPD participated on the JTTF, few formal complaints were made against officers conducting JTTF activities.
F4
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
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
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
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
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
-
R1The Mayor and the Chief of Police should decide if rejoining the JTTF is in the best interest of the residents of our City and make this publicly known
-
R2In the event that the Mayor and Chief of Police decide to re-join the JTTF, the Chief of Police should negotiate a revised MOU with the FBI and submit this to the PC for discussion and public comment at an open meeting. This should be done no later than July 1, 2020.
-
R3The President of the PC should designate a commissioner as a point of contact for all JTTF interested parties. This appointment should be completed
-
R4The Chief of Police should instruct the WDU to expedite the revision process of DGO 8.10 immediately but no later than the first week of January 2020. The WDU in considering the revisions to DGO 8.10 should include a review of the R4a-f recommendations before submitting the revisions to the Chief of Police. The revised DGO should be forwarded to the PC for approval no later than July 1, 2020.
-
R5Physical surveillance from places open to the public. C. If the techniques listed in Section B are inadequate or obviously would be futile under the circumstances, the Department may use techniques such as the following:
Conclusions 1
-
CL1Investigations of terrorist activities that need joint cooperation with local authorities may be more cumbersome or ineffective without a SFPD officer on the task force. It is not possible to state with any certainty that San Francisco was safer when participating on the JTTF, what can be said is the Mayor and SFPD now have access to less timely information about potential risks and dangers to San Francisco. Since the suspension of SFPD participation in the JTTF as of February 1, 2017, little action has been undertaken to address the matter. The WDU has yet to submit a proposed revision of DGO 8.10 through the appropriate channels as required by DGO 3.01. The Chief of Police and the FBI have not publicly made known if progress is being made on an amended MOU. Finally, the PC has taken no action and has not put JTTF on its calendar for consideration or discussion. SFCGJ 2018-2019_JTTF: Balancing Public Safety with Civil Rights 14