Responses to Findings and Recommendations Made in the Report:

R1

would be a valuable resource for the community. The OCC is working on creating such a page, as described in the next response. REPLY TO RESPONSES TO FINDING 1 The Civil Grand Jury appreciates that all three agencies recognize that they can do more to inform the citizens of San Francisco about how the OIS investigation process works. We also appreciate the work that each of the departments has done with regard to community outreach generally, and we encourage each department to continue those efforts. Specifically, with regard to the general process of OIS investigations, however, we believe that clear-cut information must be readily available to everyone and easily accessible. A sufficient level of transparency is not met by requiring an interested party to sift through monthly, quarterly or annual reports to find information on the OIS process or to have to make assumptions about how the process works. R.1. Each of the three City agencies fundamental to OIS investigations — SFPD, DA’s Office and OCC — should create a “OIS Investigations” web page specifically devoted to educating the public about that agency’s role in the investigation of OIS incidents. Each agency’s web page should be comprehensive and answer the following questions: ● Who is involved in the investigation and what are their roles and responsibilities; ● Why is the agency involved in OIS investigations; ● What is the investigation’s purpose, what goals does the investigation attempt to achieve, what parts are disclosable and/or disclosed to the public, and what parts are not and/or cannot be disclosed and why; ● When does the investigation begin, what is the general time frame by which the public may expect the investigation to be completed, and what variables may affect this time frame; ● How does the OIS investigation process work; and ● Where may the public go for more information about OIS investigations generally, as well as about specific OIS investigations. Each agency should make its “OIS Investigations” web page available in English, Spanish, Chinese and Filipino (Tagalog). Each agency should provide a link from its home page to its “OIS Investigations” web page, so that it can be accessed easily. Each agency should add its “OIS Investigations” web page to its website as soon as possible, but no later than six months after the date this report is published. SFPD Recommendation has not been, but will be, implemented in the future. The SFPD agrees that information should be provided to the public consistent with the best practices in 21st century policing. The SPFD is evaluating and adjusting its website to provide improved information to the community. During this process, the SFPD will consider inclusion of the above recommendation, as well as review other agency websites for additional information that could be included. As required by the City and fully supported by the SFPD, information available on the website will meet the requirements of the Language Access Ordinance. DA’s Office This recommendation will be implemented no later than December 31, 2016. We are hopeful that by this date we will be able to post our new role and responsibilities based on the formation of the IIB [Independent Investigations Bureau]. OCC This recommendation has not been, but will be, implemented in the future. As noted above with respect to Finding 1, the OCC agrees that the webpage described in this Recommendation would be valuable to the community. As part of a package of ongoing information technology improvements at the OCC, the Mayor and Board of Supervisors have allocated funding for a new Assistant Information Systems Analyst (Civil Service Classification 1051). I intend to task that individual with creating the webpage containing the information described in Recommendation I . Other staff are crafting the content, which will be translated as recommended. REPLY TO RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATION 1 The Civil Grand Jury appreciates that each agency agrees to implement this recommendation. We ask the SFPD not only to “consider inclusion of the above recommendation,” but to actually include the content recommended. We also ask the SFPD to set a “timeframe for implementation” as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(2). We ask the DA’s Office to commit to implement this recommendation whether or not the formation of the IIB is successful within the timeframe indicated. We ask the OCC to set a “timeframe for implementation” as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(2). 3

R2

A. The Police Commission, in coordination with the relevant SFPD divisions, the DA and the OCC should immediately commission a comprehensive study of ways to streamline the OIS investigation process with the goal of reducing the overall time to conduct a full investigation. Police Response not yet provided. Commission SFPD Recommendation has not be been, but will be, implemented in the future. This recommendation is being reviewed by the U.S. Department of Justice Collaborative Reform Initiative (DOJ-CRI) review team and compared against national best practices. The SFPD will review and implement recommendations made by the DOJ-CRI and the Civil Grand Jury. DA’s Office This recommendation will not be implemented as we do not have adequate funding to commission the recommended study. However we have already determined several ways to improve the speed and independence of OIS investigations. In the 2016-17 budget we requested funding to create an Independent Investigations Bureau (IIB). This request was funded and we are waiting for the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors to remove the positions from reserve so that we can hire attorneys and investigators dedicated solely to investigating and prosecuting officer involved shootings and excessive use of force cases. This team will be able to send trained personnel to the scene of OIS cases which will dramatically improve our ability to capture evidence in a timely manner. Additionally, having dedicated personnel on these cases, rather than tasking the work to already overburdened prosecutors will mean faster charging and trial preparation than we are currently capable of achieving. The new unit will bring much needed improvement to our process which has been substantially limited by poor resources. OCC This recommendation requires further study. It is important to note that the OCC reports to the Police Commission, and this recommendation calls for the Police Commission to arrange for a study. The OCC defers to the Commission as to whether and how to do so. Once the Commission provides direction as to how it wishes to proceed, the OCC will make every effort to assist. REPLY TO RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATION 2.A. While the Civil Grand Jury believes a comprehensive study is necessary, we are encouraged that each agency that has responded thus far appears committed to determine ways to streamline the OIS investigation process with the goal of reducing the overall time to conduct a full investigation. We look forward to the Police Commission’s response. We ask the SFPD to determine and implement ways to streamline its OIS investigation process regardless of whether the DOJ-CRI makes recommendations on the issue. We also ask the SFPD to set a “timeframe for implementation” as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(2). We ask for clarification from the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors and the DA’s Office as to the meaning and impact of placing positions in “reserve,” why these positions are in reserve, what it takes to remove these positions from reserve, and when these positions will be removed from reserve. If there is a chance that these positions will not be removed from reserve within the next 30-60 days, we ask the DA’s Office to provide an alternate plan and timeframe by which it will streamline its OIS investigation process.

R3

A. The SFPD Field Operations Bureau should implement standardized, modern methods to notify all essential responders of an OIS incident. SFPD Recommendation has not be been, but will be, implemented in the future. The SFPD’s Department Operations Center (DOC), a unit under the command of the Special Operations Bureau, has a system in place to notify all essential responders to OIS incidents. The SFPD has added an additional layer of notification specific to the on-call DA investigator, which requires a direct call from the Captain of the Major Crimes Division to the on-call DA investigator immediately after learning of an OIS incident. The SFPD will research available technology that can improve the notification process. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 3.A. The Civil Grand Jury appreciates that the SFPD has added an additional layer of notification specific to the on-call DA investigator. We ask the SFPD not only to perform “a review of best practices of similar-sized agencies” and to “research available technology,” but to then implement those best practices and technology. We also ask the SFPD to set a “timeframe for implementation” as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(2).

R4

The SFPD and the DA’s Office should jointly draft a new MOU in which each commits to an agreed-upon process to: ● Prioritize and expedite their investigations of OIS incidents within an established timeframe; Make a public announcement when each completes its OIS investigation, so that the public may be better informed of the investigative results and the time taken by each agency to complete its OIS investigation. SFPD Recommendation requires further analysis. The SFPD is reviewing the current MOU and is in discussion with the DA’s Office, as well as exploring additional resources to investigate OIS incidents. DA’s Office This recommendation has not yet been implemented. We have drafted a proposed MOU and shared it with the SFPD. We are awaiting their feedback and acceptance of the new terms. We hope to reach agreement by September 30, 2016. REPLY TO RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATION 4. The Civil Grand Jury is encouraged that a new MOU has been proposed by the DA’s Office and is under review by the SFPD. We ask the SFPD to confirm that it also expects to reach agreement by September 30, 2016, or to set a “timeframe for response” to this recommendation with its further analysis within six 8 months of the release of this report as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(3). We also ask the SFPD to provide clarification regarding the “additional resources to investigate OIS incidents” it is exploring. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.

R5

A. The DA should immediately give the investigation of OIS cases priority and dedicate the departmental resources required to reduce the time the DA’s Office takes to complete its criminal investigation and issue its charging decision letters in OIS cases. DA’s Office This recommendation has been implemented in part, and will be fully implemented once the funding for the IIB is released and the positions are filled. The District Attorney has always given the investigation of OIS incidents top priority and has used the limited resources available to his office to ensure that each OIS investigation is conducted in a thorough and professional manner. However the historic lack of funding specifically dedicated to the investigation of OIS incidents has resulted in a much longer than optimal length of time required to complete each investigation and issue the charging decision letters. We have already determined several ways to improve the speed and independence of OIS investigations. As noted in response to Recommendation 2.A. we requested funding to create the IIB and this request was funded in the current fiscal year’s budget. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 5.A. The Civil Grand Jury asks for clarification from the Mayor, the Board of Supervisors and the DA’s Office as to the meaning and impact of placing positions in “reserve,” why these positions are in reserve, what it takes to remove these positions from reserve, and when these positions will be removed from reserve. If there is a chance that funding for the IIB will not be released within the next 30-60 days, we ask the DA’s Office to provide an alternate plan and timeframe by which it will streamline its OIS investigation process. 9

R6

A. After the OCME releases each autopsy report in OIS cases, the CME should proactively call a meeting of the SFPD’s Homicide Detail, DA’s Office and OCC to help those agencies interpret the highly technical findings of the autopsy report. This meeting should be coordinated, if possible, to include reports from the Crime Lab on the results of its firearms comparisons, ballistics examinations and DNA analysis. OCME Recommendation has not been, but will be, implemented in the future. The OCME will fully participate in after action conferences with regard to OIS incidents; however, the conference should be initiated by the agency leading the investigation as the agency will have a better understanding of the case status of each participating party. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 6.A. The Civil Grand Jury appreciates that the OCME has agreed to participate fully in “after action conferences.” We ask the OCME to set a “timeframe for implementation” as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(2). We also ask the OCME to reconsider its position that the conference should be initiated by the agency leading the investigation. Instead, we ask the CME to take the lead in calling a meeting to interpret the findings of the OCME investigation immediately after the agency has issued its report to streamline the overall OIS investigation and mitigate any delay.

R7

A. The OCC should allocate current year funds and include funding requests in the proposed budget for fiscal year 2017-2018, and thereafter, for transcription services, so that OCC staff can spend more of its time on investigations and legal analysis and less time on the transcription of interview notes. OCC This recommendation has been implemented. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 7.A. The Civil Grand Jury appreciates that this recommendation has been implemented and thanks all personnel and entities involved making it happen.

R8

A. The Mayor’s Office should form a new standing task force to oversee the investigation of OIS cases. The task force should include high ranking persons from the Sheriff’s Office, the DA’s Office, the OCME, the SFPD (including the Chief Homicide Inspector), and the OCC. The task force may also include a state or federal department of justice consultant or observer, and a knowledgeable, respected citizen. Mayor Response not yet provided. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 8.A. It appears that the Mayor has inadvertently neglected to include a response to this recommendation. The Civil Grand Jury looks forward to the Mayor’s response.

R9

SFPD should make publicly available and prominently display on its website a more robust set of statistics, data and information on OIS incidents where its officers are involved, using the data release practices of law enforcement agencies like the Dallas Police Department and the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department. SFPD Recommendation has not been, but will be, implemented in the future. As part of the SFPD’s participation the the White House Initiative, staff began the process of implementing the items in this recommendation. The City’s Department of Technology will be developing and enhancing the City’s IT infrastructure which will include developing new websites for both the SFPD and Police Commission. At this time, the current website needs to be redesigned to make it more user-friendly and information readily accessible on a dedicated reports page. It is anticipated that the SFPD’s IT Department will have the infrastructure developed within the second quarter of 2017. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 9 The Civil Grand Jury appreciates that the SFPD has already begun providing statistics, data and information as part of the White House Police Data Initiative and, in fact, commended the SFPD for its efforts. (See C.9.B. on p. 50 of our report.) We ask the SFPD not only to “review other agencies’ best practices,” but to work to implement those best practices here. Moreover, there is 16 no reason why the SFPD must merely implement other agencies’ best practices. Instead, we encourage the SFPD to strive to be a leader in making OIS investigations as transparent and timely as possible and release as much related information and data as possible. While we understand the need to make the SFPD and Police Commission websites more user- friendly, and in fact, have made recommendations in that regard, we do not believe that the SFPD needs to wait until the infrastructure is in place before releasing more robust data and information on its website and by other means. Therefore, we encourage the SFPD to make a more robust set of statistics, data and information on OIS incidents available as soon as possible. FINDING AND RECOMMENDATIONS 10.

R10

A. SFPD and the Police Commission should make it official policy for the SFPD to hold press conferences as soon as possible after each OIS incident. SFPD Recommendation has been implemented. The SFPD’s current practice is to have a press briefing/conference as immediately as possible after each OIS incident, including a briefing at the scene of, or in close proximity to, the incident. At these briefings, preliminary information is provided by the Media Relations Unit, the Police Chief, or designee. Updated information is provided to the public through press releases, and any media inquiries are addressed through the Media Relations Unit. Updated information also is provided at community stakeholder or public meetings, held of an OIS incident, as well as at the weekly Police Commission and at meetings with community leaders, stakeholders, and advocates. Police Response not yet provided. Commission REPLY TO RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATION 10.A. The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that the SFPD’s “current practice” is to hold a press briefing/conference as soon as possible after each OIS incident and, in fact, we commended the SFPD for its efforts. (See C.10. on p. 50 of our report.) The point of this recommendation is to transform the SFPD’s “current practice” into “official policy,” either through a General Order (Police Commission) or by Department Bulletin (Police Chief) or by some other written method. We believe that while “current practice” serves only as a guide for future actions, “official policy” serves as a “directive” that recognizes the importance of these press conferences and mandates that they occur. Therefore, we encourage the SFPD to revise its response from “recommendation has been implemented,” to “recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future,” along with a “timeframe for implementation” of that official policy as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(2). We look forward to the Police Commission’s response.

R11

A. SFPD and the Police Commission should make it official policy for the SFPD to post “updates” on its website as soon as possible after each OIS incident. SFPD Recommendation has not been, but will be, implemented in the future. The SFPD currently posts information released to the media as a “press release” relating to critical incidents, including OIS incidents, on its website. In addition, information relating to community and/or stakeholder meetings are released to the media and posted on the website. The SFPD will review best practices of other agencies to determine a process by which updated information can be shared on its website that will not compromise the ongoing investigation. As part of the SFPD’s participation in the White House Police Data Initiative, datasets relating to officer-involved shootings between 2009 and 2015 arc posted. In addition, a website link to OIS incidents could be developed. Police Response not yet provided. Commission REPLY TO RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATION 11.A. The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that the SFPD’s “current practice” of posting information about each OIS incident on its website and, in fact, we commended the SFPD for its efforts. (See C.11. on p. 51 of our report.) The point of this recommendation is to transform the SFPD’s “current 19 practice” into “official policy,” either through a General Order (Police Commission) or by Department Bulletin (Police Chief) or by some other written method. We believe that while “current practice” serves only as a guide for future actions, “official policy” serves as a “directive” that recognizes the importance of these website updates and mandates that they occur. We also appreciate the SFPD’s intent to make these website updates as easy to find and access as possible. We ask the SFPD to set a “timeframe for implementation” as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(2). We look forward to the Police Commission’s response.

R12

A. SFPD and the Police Commission should make it official policy for the SFPD to hold town hall meetings within a week after each OIS incident. SFPD Recommendation requires further analysis. For the past five years, it has been a practice of the SFPD to hold a town hall, community, or stakeholder meeting in the area most affected by an OIS incident. Most recently, as the SFPD has been expanding its collaboration with community stakeholders and interfaith leaders, meetings have been held with these specific groups who represent those neighborhoods most impacted by the incident. The intent of these meetings is to provide information directly to community representatives and to engage in open dialogue to address concerns in a more productive environment. These community leaders then provide the information to their respective communities. The SFPD acknowledges the seriousness of these critical incidents, and the importance of transparency, and will draft a policy that will allow for information to be shared with the public whether at a public meeting or direct meeting with community leaders and stakeholders. Police Response not yet provided. Commission REPLY TO RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATION 12.A. The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that the SFPD’s “current practice” is to hold a town hall meeting within a week to 10 days after each OIS incident and, in fact, we commended the SFPD for its efforts. (See C.12. on p. 51 of our report.) The point of this recommendation is to transform the SFPD’s “current practice” into “official policy,” either through a General Order (Police Commission) or by Department Bulletin (Police Chief) or by some other written method. We believe that while “current practice” serves only as a guide for future actions, “official policy” serves as a “directive” that recognizes the importance of these town hall meetings and mandates that they occur. We understand that traditional town hall meetings may no longer be the most productive method of disseminating information and providing the community with an opportunity to ask questions and voice its opinions and concerns regarding a particular OIS incident, because recent town hall and other meetings have been “hijacked” by special interest groups. We trust, however, that the SFPD recognizes how vital town hall meetings are in making investigations of OIS incidents transparent, and that the SFPD will be able to arrive at a creative solution that allows the SFPD to disseminate vital information, provides the community with a mechanism by which its questions and concerns can be voiced, and provides as much transparency as possible. We look forward to the SFPD’s analysis and proposed solution. We ask the SFPD to set a “timeframe for response” to this recommendation with its further analysis of the release of this report as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(3). We look forward to the Police Commission’s response. 21

R13

A. SFPD and the Police Commission should make it official policy for the SFPD to release the names of all officers involved in each OIS incident , unless it has knowledge of credible threats to the officer’s safety. In those instances in which the SFPD has knowledge that such credible threats exist, the SFPD should issue a statement stating it is withholding release of the names of the officers because of a credible threat to their safety. SFPD Recommendation has been implemented. Since 2014, when the California Supreme Court ruled that agencies must release the names of officers involved in shootings, the SFPD has complied with that decision of the incident. When a credible threat to the safety of the involved officer(s) exists, the SFPD will issue a statement to clarify why the information is being withheld. Police Response not yet provided. Commission REPLY TO RESPONSES TO RECOMMENDATION 13.A. The Civil Grand Jury asks the SFPD to direct us to the General Order, Department Bulletin or other written directive, which makes it official policy for the SFPD to release the names of officers involved in each OIS incident of the incident or a statement that it cannot do so in those instances in which a credible threat to the safety of the officers involved exists.

R14

A. The DA’s Office should make a public announcement each time it issues a charging decision letter so that the public is made aware that it has completed its OIS criminal investigation. DA’s Office This recommendation has been implemented. We already prepare a letter summarizing each incident and post it to our website. Going forward, the District Attorney’s Office will also issue a press statement each time a charging decision has been made relating to an OIS investigation. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 14.A. The Civil Grand Jury recognizes that the DA’s Office prepares and posts a letter on its website which summarizes each OIS incident and the results of its investigation, and, in fact, we commended the DA’s Office for its efforts. (See C.14. on p. 54 of our report.) We appreciate that the DA’s Office will now also issue a press statement each time it releases a charging decision letter.

R15

The Police Commission or the newly created OIS Investigation Oversight Task Force (see Recommendations R.8.A. and R.8.B.), in addition to to summarizing the findings and conclusions of the various OIS investigations (again see Recommendations R.8.A. and R.8.B.), should should examine each fatal OIS incident with a view to developing “lessons learned” and answering the following questions: ● What circumstances contributed to the OIS incident? ● What aspects of the interaction between the SFPD officers and the suspect, if any, could have been handled differently so that the loss of a life would not have occurred? ● What alternatives to deadly force may have been tried? What lessons can be learned? ● Should any SFPD policies and procedures be reviewed or revised because of the incident? 26 The entity making this review of the fatal OIS incident should publish its findings, as well as those from each of the other City agencies involved, in one comprehensive report that is made available to the public. The entity should then hold town hall meetings to share highlights from the report and the conclusions drawn from the OIS incident and should seek and allow for public comment and feedback. Police Response not yet provided. Commission Mayor Requires further analysis. The Police Commission currently oversees and reviews the conduct of OIS investigations. Many of the reforms already implemented by SFPD - including time and distance / zone of danger, body worn cameras and use of force - are based on the findings from OIS investigations. The Police Commission also engages the Police Officers Association (POA) and provides a pubic forum for community members to comment on current practices and proposed reforms. In November 2016, San Francisco voters will vote on a City Charter Amendment to rename the Office of Citizen Complaints to the Department of Police Accountability. If approved by voters, the Charter Amendment would require that the Department of Police Accountability investigate claims of officer misconduct and use of force. Certain other reforms are pending and additional reforms will be proposed in the future. REPLY TO RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 15. The Civil Grand Jury appreciates that the agencies involved are implementing reforms to prevent future OIS incidents. We believe that reforms to the SFPD’s use of force policy will result in positive change. As part of the reform process, steps must be taken and policies must be implemented to ensure that OIS investigations and their results are as transparent and timely as possible. This recommendation is directed at achieving that goal. We appreciate that the Mayor believes that this recommendation warrants further analysis. We ask the Mayor’s Office, as it conducts its further analysis, not to lose sight of the goals of this report, namely increased timeliness and greater transparency, and the goal of this recommendation, which is to provide a comprehensive summary of the results of each OIS investigation. We are confident that the Mayor, with input from the Police Commission, the SFPD, DA’s Office, the OCC and all other agencies involved in OIS incidents and their investigation, as well as from neighborhood groups and community activists, will be able to arrive at a comprehensive solution that meets these goals. We ask the Mayor’s Office to clarify how it believes the proposed City Charter Amendment will further the goal of increased timeliness and greater transparency. We also ask the Mayor’s Office to provide detail regarding “certain other reforms” that are pending and the “additional reforms” that “will be proposed in the future” and how these reforms will further these goals. We look forward to the Mayor’s analysis and proposed solution. We ask the Mayor’s Office to set a “timeframe for response” to this recommendation with its further analysis of the release of this report as required by Penal Code § 933.05(b)(3). We also look forward to the Police Commission’s response. 27