San Francisco County Grand Jury • 2018-2019 • Agency Response
Response to: Required Responses

City and County of San Francisco Robert Hirsch President September 13, 2019 The Honorable Garrett L. Wong Presiding*

Published: September 13, 2019 7 pages
View Original PDF

Findings and Recommendations 8 findings

F1
The 2007 MOU providing for JTTF participation expired by operation of the CCSF Charter. The Chief of Police agreed the MOU had to be revised in order for it to be approved by the Police Commission. The Chief also acknowledged the concern of civil liberties groups to include more oversight that is transparent. Partially Disagree. The Police Chief's discussions with the Civil Grand Jury were confidential, thus I am unable to comment on what was discussed or agreed to by the Chief. I am aware that members of the civil rights community have raised a number of concerns related to the SFPD's participation in the JTTF including officer training, compliance with Department General Order (DGO) 8.10, and racial profiling. Transparent oversight is but one concern.
Related Recommendations (1)
R1
The 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 by Feb 3, 2020. No response elicited from this respondent.
F2
Communication and coordination between SFPD and federal authorities is less efficient and more cumbersome than when SFPD was part of the JTTF. Partially Disagree. The SFPD and FBI are in daily communication and I have not seen evidence that either communication or coordination are inefficient or cumbersome. The SFPD, for example, participates in NCRIC, a clearing house for public safety data and criminal activity in the region, and a recipient of JTTF intelligence and data.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
In 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 Police Commission for discussion and public comment at an open meeting. This should be done no later than July 1, 2020 I will not seek to implement this Recommendation. Any revision to the MOU between the SFPD and the FBI should involve a working group composed of interested stakeholders, as was the case in 2016-2017. The SFPD Chief and FBI cannot merely negotiate a new agreement. The issues are serious, the public interest high, and the process arduous. Any revision of the expired MOU will take longer than the proposed July 2020 deadline allows.
F3
In the period of 2002-2017 SFPD participated on the JTTF, few formal complaints were made against officers conducting JTTF activities. Agree. I am not aware of a significant number of formal complaints between 2002 and 2017 against SFPD officers conducting JTTF activities.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
The President of the Police Commission shall designate a commissioner as a point of contact for all JTTF interested parties. This appointment should be completed by April 3, 2020. Recommendation has been implemented. The current President of the Commission is the designated point person for JTTF matters.
F4
This 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 surreptitiously engaged in any form of enforcement associated with federal immigration laws. Partially disagree. I cannot determine what the investigation of the Civil Grand Jury detected or uncovered. I am aware of a finding a few years ago by the DPA, then the Office of Citizen Complaints (OCC), in case #15-0168, that a training failure had occurred resulting in a violation of DGO 8.10.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
The Chief of Police should instruct the Written Directives Unit to expedite the revision process of DGO 8.10 immediately but no later than the first week of January 2020. The Written Directives Unit in considering the revisions to DGO 8.10 should include a review of the R4a-R4f recommendations before submitting the revisions to the Chief of Police. The revised DGO should be forwarded to the Police Commission for approval no later than July 3, 2020. I will not seek to implement this Recommendation. The procedure outlined by the Civil Grand Jury is incorrect. Written Directives is not tasked with rewriting DGO 8.10. A working group composed of interested stakeholders must participate in any revision process relative to this DGO, as the issues are significant and divergent viewpoints and ideas enhance any effort to recreate an MOU between the SFPD and FBI. The timeframe offered by the Civil Grand Jury for completing any revision effort is unrealistically aggressive. The Police Commission is developing a five-year schedule for reviewing and revising all SFPD's General Orders including DGO 8.10. That DGO is slated for review in 2020.
F5
The secrecy obligations of SFPD officers in the JTTF require the said officers not disclose the classified material to individuals without an appropriate level of clearance on a need-to-know basis. These secrecy obligations are necessary but allow or cause speculation and concern by parties without access. Agree. I do note however, some work by participating law enforcement officers in the JTTF involves non-classified information which does not create a secrecy obligation.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The Police Commission is an essential party to SFPD's future participation in the JTTF. The Police Commission 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. Agree. I add that the Police Commission, in addition to having the "authority to bring proposed MOU and related DGO's up for discussion and public comment," also has the authority and responsibility to approve or disapprove such items.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
Presently, the Police Commission 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. Partially disagree. It is beneficial to have a designated Police Commissioner as a point of contact for interested parties. Civil Grand Jury Representatives were advised that the President had appointed himself as the "designated commissioner of contact" for matters related to the JTTF.
No recommendations for this finding
F8
SFPD DGO 8.10 is considered confusing and ambiguous by many witnesses. It does not contain clear and concise wording and references are inaccurate. In order for JTTF officers to comply with DGO 8.10 it needs to be revised and updated. Partially disagree. While some interviewees may have made statements to the contrary, I believe DGO 8.10 is neither confusing nor ambiguous. The document clearly establishes the requirement that SFPD officers, working with the JTTF, have reasonable suspicion of criminal activity if they are to participate in that investigation. There are corrections which need to be made as noted hereinafter, but the DGO remains clear and specific as to rules and procedures which must be followed where first amendment activities are implicated in a criminal investigation.
No recommendations for this finding

* This report's PDF did not contain easily extractable text and required Optical Character Recognition (OCR) for analysis. There may be minor errors in the extracted findings and recommendations due to OCR limitations with scanned documents.