Police Department Policies and Procedures
Shall the City allow the Police Department to hold community meetings before the Police Commission can change policing policies, reduce recordkeeping and reporting requirements for police officers, set new policies for police officers to report use-of-force incidents and to engage in vehicle pursuits, authorize the Police Department to use drones and install public surveillance cameras without further approval, and authorize the Police Department to use new surveillance technology unless the Board of Supervisors disapproves?
Digest by the Ballot Simplification Committee
The Way It Is Now:
The Police Commission (Commission) oversees and adopts policies for the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). The Chief of Police manages the SFPD’s day-to-day operations. The Board of Supervisors (Board) may also adopt policies for the SFPD, by a majority vote.
A policy adopted by the Commission or the Board outlines and limits how police officers conduct law enforcement duties.
Under the Commission’s use-of-force policy, officers must prepare a written report when they use a firearm, point a firearm at a person, force a resisting suspect into handcuffs, or use force likely to cause physical pain or injury. Officers must also record their use of force using body-worn cameras.
Under the Commission’s vehicle-pursuit policy, an officer may use a vehicle to pursue a person fleeing in a vehicle only when the officer suspects the person committed a violent felony or when the officer believes the person poses an immediate risk to public safety.
The Board has adopted a policy governing the acquisition and use of surveillance technology by the SFPD and other City departments. The City may install public surveillance cameras on streets, sidewalks and common areas of public housing upon approval of the Commission if it finds there is substantial crime occurring at the location.
Before the SFPD can use or acquire a new surveillance technology, the Board must approve its use. The SFPD may not use facial recognition technology except in limited circumstances.
The Proposal:
Proposition E is an ordinance that would make these changes:
- Before the Commission changes SFPD policy, there would be a 90-day period for the SFPD to hold one community meeting at each district police station to solicit feedback. The Chief of Police could waive this process.
- The Commission and the SFPD would have to reduce recordkeeping and reporting to the extent allowed by law, with the goal that patrol officers spend no more than 20% of their work time on administrative tasks.
- Written use-of-force reports would be required only if the officer’s use of force physically injured a person or if the officer used a firearm or pointed it at a person. In other use-of-force cases, the incident could be reported by body- worn cameras.
- A vehicle pursuit would be allowed when an officer has reasonable suspicion that a person committed, is committing or is likely to commit a felony or violent misdemeanor.
- The Commission has until October 1, 2024, to adopt new policies consistent with this measure.
- The SFPD could use drones for vehicle pursuits and active criminal investigations.
- With the intent to improve public safety, the Chief of Police could authorize installing public surveillance cameras, without Commission approval, after holding a community meeting.
- Drones and public surveillance cameras installed under these rules could include facial recognition technology and would not require Board approval. The SFPD could use other surveillance technology if it submits the policy to the Board within one year. The Board could disapprove this policy.
- Until January 1, 2027, any changes to this new ordinance must be approved by a supermajority of the Board. After that date, the changes could be approved by a majority of the Board.
A "YES" Vote Means: If you vote "yes," you want to:
- Allow the SFPD to conduct community meetings before the Commission can change SFPD policies;
- Require the Commission and the SFPD to reduce recordkeeping and reporting for officers;
- Set new policies regarding use-of-force reporting and vehicle pursuit by SFPD officers and allow the Commission to modify other policies;
- Authorize the SFPD to use drones and install surveillance cameras without Commission or Board approval, including those with facial recognition technology; and
- Authorize the SFPD to use new surveillance technology unless the Board disapproves.
A "NO" Vote Means: If you vote "no," you do not want to make these changes.
Controller's Statement on "E"
City Controller Ben Rosenfield has issued the following statement on the fiscal impact of Proposition E:
Should the proposed initiative ordinance be approved by the voters, in my opinion, in and of itself it would not affect the cost of government. Depending on the operational decisions made by the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD), there may be cost savings due to decreased administrative duties for officers, although at a level that cannot be determined.
The proposed initiative ordinance would require that the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD) give public notice and solicit community input on proposed policy changes, with at least one community meeting at each of the ten district stations.
The proposed initiative ordinance modifies SFPD’s existing use of force and vehicle pursuit policies and allows body-worn cameras and drones under certain circumstances. If the ordinance is approved, officers will only be required to write written reports if a use of force results in injury, complaint of injury, or if a firearm is pointed at a person. Otherwise, use of force reporting requirements will be met through body camera footage.
Additionally, if approved, the ordinance would change the process to install public safety cameras. Additional reliance on body-worn cameras, public safety cameras and drones may increase the SFPD’s need for technology equipment.
How "E" Got on the Ballot
On November 20, 2023, the Department of Elections received a proposed ordinance signed by Mayor Breed.
The Municipal Elections Code allows the Mayor to place an ordinance on the ballot in this manner.
This measure requires 50%+1 affirmative votes to pass.
Arguments are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency. Arguments are printed as submitted. Spelling and grammatical errors have not been corrected.
Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E
VOTE YES ON E TO MAKE SAN FRANCISCO SAFER
Proposition E: Safer San Francisco puts our police officers in the best position to serve our communities by giving them the tools and rules they need to enforce laws, while preventing the Police Commission from interfering in community safety efforts.
Prop E gives officers 21st-century technology tools.
Prop E changes city policies to allow police officers to use publicly-owned cameras and public safety drones to prevent, investigate, and solve crimes. Right now, SFPD officers are prevented from using these tools in real-time to help prevent and solve crimes like retail theft, auto theft, and car break-ins.
Prop E gets more officers out on the street.
Prop E eliminates duplicative reporting requirements, reducing the amount of time officers are behind a desk and getting them back on the street. In most cases, the officers can use technology like body-worn cameras to record incident information, instead of filling out excessive paperwork, which keeps officers from patrolling our streets.
Prop E changes rules to get more officers pursuing criminals.
Prop E changes the rules to allow officers to actively pursue suspects of felonies and violent misdemeanors, including retail theft, vehicle theft, and auto burglaries, so long as the pursuit can be done safely. Right now, our officers are restricted in the actions they can take.
Prop E prevents the Police Commission from putting ideology before community safety.
Prop E prevents the Police Commission from micromanaging the Chief of Police and ensures that any new policies put in place do not require more than 20% of an officer’s total on-duty time spent on administrative duties.
Give our police officers the TOOLS to do their jobs with 21st-century technology, and change the RULES to get more officers out on the street deterring crime and pursuing criminals.
Vote YES on Prop E.
Mayor London Breed
Rebuttal to Proponent’s Argument in Favor of Proposition E
Proposition E weakens the police commission's ability to provide independent oversight and accountability for SFPD. Police Commissioners are appointed by the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Proposition E undermines the Police Commission.
Proposition E is deceptive. It strips away existing safeguards designed to protect us from dangerous technology and police abuse. These safeguards are in place because SFPD has a long history of misconduct and discrimination against communities of color.
Proposition E misleads the public by suggesting that SFPD cannot use technology today. The truth is, SFPD can use many technologies if they have safety rules approved by the Board of Supervisors.
Proposition E eliminates guardrails and lets police use invasive surveillance technology — even face scanning drones according to the City Attorney - without safety policies or oversight.
Proposition E makes it harder to hold police officers accountable for racial profiling and use of force by watering down important reporting requirements. San Franciscans deserve more information about police misconduct, not less.
Proposition E endorses dangerous vehicle chases for low level offenses and will lead to more civilian deaths.
Proposition E is about politics, not public safety. To improve community safety, San Francisco must focus on evidence-based solutions such as affordable housing, mental health care, and substance use treatment.
San Franciscans deserve better than this cynical Proposition. City leaders should propose real strategies to address community safety instead of pushing an unserious ballot measure that takes us backwards.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION E
ACLU of Northern California
Opponent's Argument Against Proposition E
Prop E is a reckless measure that throws out key reforms designed to hold police accountable and keep people safe.
Prop E endangers pedestrians, cyclists, and other innocent bystanders, along with police officers themselves, by authorizing high-speed vehicle chases for low-level crimes in one of the densest cities in the country.
Prop E guts key guardrails, curtails democratic oversight, and undermines safety rules that protect San Franciscans from new, unproven, and invasive police surveillance. According to the City Attorney’s Office, Prop E would allow the SFPD to use face-scanning drones to pursue people, creating a disturbing future where anyone in San Francisco could be identified and tracked from the sky.
Prop E would allow SFPD to conceal use-of-force incidents by limiting reporting requirements despite unacceptable racial disparities. A review of SFPD data found that in the last quarter of 2022, the department was 25 times more likely to use force on Black people than on white people. This effort to lessen reporting requirements is contrary to the U.S. Department of Justice’s recommendations that SFPD improve and increase its record keeping of use of force incidents.
Prop E weakens independent police oversight by binding the hands of the Police Commission. The community engagement process it imposes on the Commission is redundant and burdensome, effectively allowing the Chief of Police to stonewall any policy changes the department opposes. By undermining the commission’s authority, Prop E grants police the power to police themselves, which is a recipe for disaster.
Prop E is an ill-conceived and irresponsible measure that will make San Francisco less safe. Given SFPD’s persistent record of racial disparities and history of scandals, voters should let the Police Commission fulfill its mandate of providing robust oversight and accountability for SFPD.
We urge the people of San Francisco to vote NO on Proposition E.
ACLU of Northern California
Rebuttal to Opponent’s Argument Against Proposition E
Prop E opponents support the status quo – a system that allows criminals to evade arrest and commit brazen crime.
Prop E makes common-sense changes to rules that make it difficult for police officers to fight crime and make arrests.
For example, it’s easy to flee a crime scene under the Police Commission’s rules. Prop E closes loopholes and allows police officers to safely pursue suspects that commit serious crimes.
Our police officers lack basic public safety tools that other Bay Area police departments use – such as public safety cameras in high-crime areas to deter crime and catch criminals in the act. Prop E authorizes use of these 21st-century technologies to prevent car break-ins and retail theft, and gather evidence for prosecution. Surrounding Bay Area counties use public safety cameras, meaning criminals are currently attracted to San Francisco where they know they’re less likely to be caught.
Our police officers are overburdened with excessive paperwork, spending too much time at their desks writing reports, instead of patrolling and fighting crime. Prop E allows officers to be more efficient with common-sense changes such as allowing body-cam footage to fulfill reporting requirements.
San Francisco’s Police Commission has become an activist organization, more focused on political statements than meaningful balance of oversight and public safety. Prop E ensures new Commission rules are vetted by the community and experts, so officers can focus on doing their job keeping us safe.
San Francisco’s current rules enable criminal activity.
Enough is enough.
YES on Prop E to make San Francisco safer.
Supervisor Matt Dorsey
Supervisor Joel Engardio
Supervisor Rafael Mandelman
Supervisor Catherine Stefani
Paid Arguments in Favor of Proposition E
1
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
STOP CRIME ACTION SUPPORTS PROP E
Public safety affects our quality of life – from tourism to shopping to walking in your neighborhood. If you don’t feel safe, you can’t go about your day without worrying that something bad is going to happen.
SFPD is doing the best they can, but they need more help. It’s time to give the police the tools they need to combat retail theft, property crime, and car break-ins.
Prop E, Safer San Francisco will eliminate the maze of requirements put in place by the Police Commission and allow for commonsense changes that allow SFPD to safely pursue criminals and better-use technology to solve crimes.
As the department battles retirements and the loss of officers, we need our current SFPD officers out from behind their desks and back on our streets fighting crime.
Prop E, Safer San Francisco will streamline excessive bureaucratic requirements and allow officers to use their body-worn cameras to record incident information, instead of forcing every responding officer to submit written reports back at the station.
The Police Commission needs to stop micromanaging our officers and allow them to do their jobs, so our neighborhoods and city feel safe again.
On March 5, VOTE YES ON E.
Stop Crime Action
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
2
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
SAN FRANCISCO POLICE OFFICERS SUPPORT PROP E
Prop E is supported by the San Francisco Police Officers who are dedicated to keeping our city safe.
Prop E gives our Police Officers the tools they need to do their jobs. Our officers spend too much time on paperwork, instead of being out on the street serving the communities we were sworn to protect.
Prop E makes sure our officers are equipped with 21st-century technology to do their jobs. We know criminals are using the latest technology, so our officers need access too.
Prop E makes sure that the Police Department is not constrained by political activists who aren’t interested in public safety.
By voting for Prop E, our residents can back up what we hear every day – that our residents want our officers out on the street preventing crimes and making arrests when crimes do occur. We’ve seen a change in San Francisco, with more of a focus on public safety and support for our officers in doing their jobs. Let’s keep the progress moving forward.
Prop E is good for public safety in San Francisco.
San Francisco Police Officers Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
3
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
SENIORS SUPPORT PROP E
Since the start of the pandemic, crimes against seniors have risen and our communities are less safe.
Each day, there is a viral video showing a new violent attack, or the robbery of a local business.
We are fed up witnessing assaults and theft. We are tired of seeing our local merchants lose their life’s work.
Most importantly, we must ensure our elderly neighbors and people with disabilities can travel through their neighborhoods without fear.
That is why we are supporting Prop E.
- Prop E will untie the hands of SFPD, so they can safely go after the criminals committing these crimes.
- Prop E will allow more use of public safety cameras and other technologies, to deter crime and catch thieves and criminals in the act.
- Prop E will get our police officers back on the street by allowing them to submit body camera footage for incident reports, instead of sitting at a desk filling out redundant paperwork.
- Prop E will ensure the Police Commission stops putting ideology ahead of community safety, by mandating that no more than 20% of an officer’s total on-duty time be spent on administrative paperwork.
It’s time to send a message that crime will not be tolerated.
VOTE YES ON E.
Anni Chung, President and CEO of Self-Help for the Elderly*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
4
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
SMALL BUSINESSES SUPPORT PROP E
Small Business owners support Prop E. We are tired of our businesses being broken into and our storefronts being graffitied. We want more police presence in our neighborhoods.
- Prop E will get police officers walking foot patrols in our merchant corridors, not sitting behind desks filling out endless amounts of paperwork.
- Prop E will make sure officers have access to tools like public safety cameras to address commercial burglaries.
- Prop E will help shut down the drug markets that make it hard for small business operators to provide jobs and serve their communities.
Small business owners want our storefronts protected, we want our workers to feel safe coming to and from work, and we want our customers to feel welcome in our neighborhoods.
Prop E will make sure that public safety comes first and that our small businesses have more protection. Prop E is good for small businesses and good for San Francisco.
Vote Yes on Prop E.
San Francisco Council of District Merchants Associations
Ben Bleiman, SF Bar Owners Alliance
Sharky Laguana, Former Small Business Commission President
Eva Lee, Chair, Chinatown Merchants Association*
Golden Gate Restaurant Association
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
5
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
DOWNTOWN BUSINESS SUPPORT PROP E
San Francisco is a beautiful city that draws visitors from all over the world for both business and vacation. Tourism spending in 2023 approached $9 billion a year, supporting small businesses, jobs, and our overall economy. This funding supports parks, libraries, street cleaners, and all the services we provide to care for those in need. To continue to grow our tourism economy, people need to know that San Francisco is a safe, clean, and welcoming city.
Prop E will make San Franciscans and visitors alike feel safe and welcome in our city. Prop E will help address the scourge of car break-ins in tourist areas like Fisherman’s Wharf and the Palace of Fine Arts. Prop E will give the police more tools to protect our visitors and our workforce serving in our hotels, our restaurants, and our retailers.
Prop E will send a message to everyone that San Francisco is taking safety seriously and that this is a city they can always feel safe in. Prop E will send a message to conventions that we are a safe place to plan their next events. When we are out recruiting businesses and visitors, it will help us to send the message that San Francisco is a city that cares about safety.
A world-class city deserves world-class public safety. Vote yes on Prop E.
Hotel Council of San Francisco
Building Owners and Managers Association of San Francisco
San Francisco Council of District Merchants Association
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
6
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
STATE AND LOCAL ELECTED OFFICIALS SUPPORT PROP E
San Francisco is a world-class city that we are proud to call home. Collectively, we have decades of service representing the city. As a result, we take personal offense when the national media and pundits take shots at San Francisco.
Like any other major city, we face challenges — some of which have been greatly exacerbated by the pandemic. But despite these issues, the state of our city remains strong.
San Francisco is making progress combating retail theft, car break-ins, and burglaries. The city’s crime rate continues to decline and elected officials at every level of government are collaborating with law enforcement to identify new ways to make the city safer.
But we can’t give up now. San Francisco police officers need all of our help to continue this progress. That’s why we are supporting Prop E on the March ballot.
Prop E will equip SFPD officers with 21st-century technology to combat and solve crime, and change the rules to allow officers to pursue suspects committing felonies and violent misdemeanors.
Prop E uses innovative new ways to redeploy our officers to the streets and reforms the Police Commission process for approving new public safety policies.
Be part of the solution and join us in voting Yes on Prop E this March.
Senator Scott Wiener
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins
Assessor Joaquín Torres
Supervisor Matt Dorsey
Supervisor Joel Engardio
Supervisor Rafael Mandelman
Supervisor Catherine Stefani
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
7
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
AAPI Leaders and Community Organizations Strongly Support Prop E for a Safer San Francisco
Our AAPI community supports the hard working police officers who have done their best to protect residents and businesses from hate crimes and store break ins. But officers need the ability to use modern tools to better protect us and spend more time patrolling the neighborhoods.
Proposition E allows more public safety cameras in high crime areas and ensures the police can access that footage in real time to deter criminal activity, prevent crime, and save lives. Having immediate access to cameras recording a burglary in progress will more likely result in the perpetrators being caught, arrested and prosecuted.
Prop E allows use of drones to safely relay real time location information to the police in cases of perpetrators fleeing the scene of a crime.
Prop E gets police out from behind their desks filling out excessive paperwork, and puts them back on the street, patrolling our neighborhoods and merchant corridors.
We are seeing public safety improvements. Prop E will ensure those improvements continue and our residents and businesses feel safer and are safer.
Vanita Louie, AAPI Leader
Brian Quan, Candidate for SF DCCC
Cyn Wang, Entertainment Commissioner*
Marjan Philhour, Candidate for SF DCCC
Mike Chen, Candidate for SF DCCC
Lily Ho, AAPI Leader
Jade Tu, Stop Asian Hate Activist
San Francisco Filipino American Democratic Club
Stand with Asian Americans
Stand with Asians
Forrest Liu, Stop Asian Hate Activist
Eva Lee, Chair, Chinatown Merchants Association*
Steven Lee, AAPI Leader
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
8
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
YES ON PROP E FOR SAFER NEIGHBORHOODS
Over the last few years, the role of law enforcement has been front and center. We still have a long way to go to rebuild the trust between the African American community and police.
But one thing that isn’t up for debate is the fact that our society needs a strong police department to keep all of our neighborhoods and residents safe.
We stand united in our belief that Prop E is the next step in making San Francisco a safer city for all.
Prop E will eliminate excessive paperwork to get more officers on the street, where they can patrol our neighborhoods and build stronger relationships within our community.
Prop E embraces new technology to fight crime, so police can use 21st-century tools like public safety cameras and other new equipment to make arrests.
Prop E will allow police to pursue suspects committing retail theft, auto burglaries, and other high-profile crimes that continue to put a black-eye on our city.
Prop E makes the San Francisco Police Commission more accountable to the community by changing the rules and mandating that new police policies must first be vetted by the community, merchants, and other experts that know the real-world impacts of the policies.
Vote Yes on Prop E.
Mayor London Breed
District Attorney Brooke Jenkins
David Miles Jr., Founder, Church of Eight Wheels
Meaghan Mitchell
Reverend Amos Brown
Cedric Akbar, Executive Director, Positive Directions Equals Change
Bayard Rustin Coalition
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
9
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
LGBTQ Community Leaders Support Prop E
Over the last few years, our local LGBTQ-owned businesses, residents, and community have been under attack. Whether it’s shops broken into at night, car windows smashed in broad daylight, or the brazen invasion of our garages and homes, our sense of security has been threatened.
One bakery in the Castro was recently in the news for being broken into for the sixth time. Enough is enough.
We meet regularly with the police department and it’s clear they need more resources to fight crime.
That’s why it’s a no brainer to vote YES on Prop E.
Prop E will free up more officers to patrol the city. How? By reducing the excessive amount of paperwork officers need to fill out when they write a report.
Prop E will give officers more leeway to safely pursue suspects when they are caught committing a crime.
Prop E will modernize our police department by giving officers access to new technologies.
And, Prop E will mandate that the Police Commission first meet with merchants, community leaders and public safety experts, before making decisions that directly affect our safety.
The choice is clear. Vote YES on E.
Alice B. Toklas LGBTQ Democratic Club
Senator Scott Wiener
Supervisor Matt Dorsey
Supervisor Rafael Mandelman
Commissioner Cyn Wang
Luis Zamora, Candidate for SF DCCC*
Joe Sangirardi, Candidate for SF DCCC
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
10
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
San Francisco Democrats for Change Endorse Prop E
As candidates running for the Democratic Central County Committee, we are working to get our local Democratic Party back on track by championing issues like public safety that actually fix our city’s problems.
We are supporting Prop E because it is an essential measure that gives police officers the 21st-century tools they need, including public safety cameras and drones, to do their job effectively and make our city safer.
Our city has been facing a shortage of nearly 500 officers, which hinders efforts to deter crime, apprehend those who are committing crimes, and solve crimes.
Police cannot be everywhere at once, especially with our officer shortage. Allowing our officers to use public safety cameras and drones aligns San Francisco with other cities across the Bay Area, California, and the world.
Prop E allows use of commonsense 21st-century tools. It’s past time we give police the tools they need to help get our city back on track for a Safer San Francisco.
Join San Francisco Democrats for Change in supporting Prop
Assembly District 19
Marjan Philhour
Michela Alioto-Pier
Sara Barz
Mike Chen
Lanier Coles
Parag Gupta
Brian Quan
Catherine Stefani
Jade Tu
Assembly District 17
Cedric Akbar
Carrie Elise Barnes
Trevor Chandler
Matt Dorsey
Michael Lai
Laurence Lem Lee
Lily Ho
Peter Lee
Joe Sangirardi
Nancy Tung
Luis Zamora
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
11
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
GROWSF SUPPORTS PROP E
San Franciscans are nearly unanimous: we want a safer city with a more effective police force. That means a Police Department that has the tools it needs to work more efficiently and with more transparency and accountability. That's what Prop E will do.
SFPD hasn't had the necessary tools or policies to pursue suspects fleeing in a vehicle, but Prop E fixes that. Police will be able to follow stolen vehicles and suspects that just broke into parked cars, and will have the option to use drones to ensure the speeding car can't get away. And now bodycam footage can be used when filing reports for use-of-force incidents. Prop E also sets up an accountable process to access security camera footage, including live streams only in extreme circumstances.
Importantly, these new tools and policies come with the proper oversight to ensure SFPD acts responsibly.
Let's create a safer San Francisco. Vote yes on Prop E.
GrowSF
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
12
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
TOGETHERSF ACTION SUPPORTS PROP E
Every San Franciscan deserves a safe, functional city. Instead of focusing on negative headlines and stereotypes of our city, it’s time to get engaged and play a role in its future.
Prop E gives voters an opportunity to be part of the solution and address the public safety challenges facing the city.
If we want safe streets, we need more officers patrolling our streets. Prop E takes a smart approach to redeploy the officers we have, so they are on beats, instead of behind a desk.
If we want fewer car break-ins, police need better policies to make arrests. Prop E reforms existing rules to allow SFPD to safely pursue people suspected of committing felonies and violent misdemeanors, such as retail theft, vehicle theft, and auto burglaries.
If we want police to be more efficient, they need the newest, state-of-the-art equipment to do so. Prop E will change city policy to allow police to use surveillance cameras and drones to prevent, investigate, and solve crimes.
If we want city policies that make our communities safer, we need to force the city’s Police Commission to focus on what matters to everyday residents. Prop E will do that.
Vote Yes on Prop E.
TogetherSF Action
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
13
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
We strongly support this measure. It provides to SFPD the tools it needs to keep the public safe, aligns SFPD policies with those proven in other cities to reduce crime without inappropriate use of force, and it limits the power of unelected, anti-police bureaucrats.
The Briones Society
Jay Donde
Bill Jackson
Tom Rapkoch
David Cuadro
Jennie Feldman
Christian Foster
Martha Ehmann Conte
Chris Lewis
Jan Diamond
Jennifer Yan
Peter Elden
Jamie Wong
Page Chamberlain
Bill Shireman
Grazia Monares
Josh Wolff
Nick Berg
Deah Williams
Jason Clark
Jeremiah Boehner
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: The Briones Society.
14
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
Westside Families Support Prop E
As concerned Westside residents, we strongly urge you to vote YES on Prop E.
Over the last few years, crime in the Sunset and Richmond has gotten out of control. Our police department is understaffed and is being out-maneuvered by criminals. Garage break-ins and smashed car windows are an everyday occurrence.
We need to give police the tools they need to make arrests, stop brazen theft, and make our communities safe again.
Prop E would do exactly that. It will remove the red-tape that keeps officers behind desks, instead of patrolling our neighborhoods.
Prop E will allow police officers to pursue criminals if they are caught in the act.
Prop E will update the department’s technology to ensure our officers have access to 21st-century tools to combat crime, like public safety cameras and drones.
The activists on the Police Commission have made our public safety policies too extreme.
Prop E will take away some of their control and ensure decisions are instead made after first engaging with merchants, neighborhood leaders, and experts, like retired officers — the people who understand the impacts of these decisions.
To make the Westside safe, the decision is simple.
VOTE YES ON E.
Westside Family Democratic Club
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Committee for a Safer San Francisco 2024.
The three largest contributors to the true source recipient committee: 1. Ronald Conway, 2. Chris Larsen, 3. San Francisco Police Officers Association PAC.
15
Paid Argument IN FAVOR of Proposition E
YES on E
The Board of Supervisors has limited the SFPD from using modern technology such as facial recognition and drones. Officers are too often bogged down with unnecessary paperwork. Proposition G will bring common sense reforms needed to allow SFPD Officers to effectively do their jobs and allow public oversight of the Police Commission.
San Francisco Republican Party
John Dennis, Chairman; Board Member CAGOP
Joseph Bleckman, Vice-Chair Special Events
Lisa Remmer, Vice-Chair Political Affairs
Yvette Corkrean, Vice-Chair Volunteer Activities; SFGOP & CAGOP Endorsed Candidate for CA Senate 11
Howard Epstein, Vice-Chair Communications
Rodney Leong, Vice-Chair Digital Communications
Jacob Spangler, Executive Director
Bruce Lou, SFGOP & CAGOP Endorsed Candidate for U.S. Congressional 11
Jason Clark, Board Member CAGOP
SFGOP.org
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: San Francisco Republican Party.
Paid Arguments Against Proposition E
1
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
The last time a police use of force question was put on the ballot, Mayor Breed remarked: "I do have concerns about taking those types of policy matters to the ballot box." But election season has apparently led her to abandon those concerns. Mayor Breed's hastily drafted measure will endanger the public and officers alike.
Vehicle pursuits can be a matter of life and death: Just this year, many innocent bystanders were killed or seriously injured by police car chases. SFPD's current vehicle pursuit policy, which was enacted 10 years ago, was drafted by the police department, and championed by then-Chief Greg Suhr. The Police Commission is already reviewing data and speaking to stakeholders—including police officers—to examine whether there are ways to increase apprehension of fleeing criminals while protecting the public from the inherent risks of high speed chases. The Mayor's poorly drafted measure, by contrast, was written without input from officers, the public, or consultation of data and it shows. It inserts vague, undefined, language that will cause confusion among officers and put the public at risk, while doing nothing to increase public safety. This issue is too important to be used as a political stepping stone for the Mayor's reelection. Join us and former Police Commissioners Petra DeJesus, Bill Hing, and Angela Chan in opposing this measure. We urge you to vote no.
Cindy Elias, Police Commission President*
Max Carter-Oberstone, Police Commission Vice President*
Kevin Benedicto, Police Commissioner*
Jesus Yañez, Police Commissioner*
*For identification purposes only; author is signing as an individual and not on behalf of an organization.
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Kevin Benedicto, Max Carter-Oberstone, Cindy Elias.
2
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
The Bar Association of San Francisco is the largest legal organization in Northern California. Our attorneys represent countless businesses and citizens of San Francisco.
We believe in a strong and nimble police force and we care deeply about public safety. But Proposition E jeopardizes public safety by imposing broad brush rules on complex and nuanced police operations, and conflicts with Department of Justice recommendations that the City is bound to follow.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION E because:
Policing is complicated. As Chief Scott stated in 2018: "it is not a national best practice to promulgate policing operational polices...by voter majority...This responsibility to set and make policy adjustments and the responsibility to manage the operations of the Department should rest with the Police Commission and the Chief of Police respectively." We agreed then and now.
It makes San Francisco less safe. Proposition E allows police to chase via vehicle anyone suspected of a "felony or violent misdemeanor," changing a respected policy established in 2013. The US DOJ recommends that vehicle pursuits should be restricted. This is because high speed pursuit in the densely populated City is extremely dangerous and will result in deaths and injury to innocent bystanders. We support other safer tools (like drones and GPS launchers) to help SFPD.
It creates unneeded and expensive litigation. Proposition E will jeopardize the legally required implementation of the 272 DOJ Recommendations for policing in San Francisco and violate our MOU with the DOJ.
It does not help police officers. Proposition E limits officers' own ability to document their use of force and violates the US DOJ Recommendation to increase documentation.
It creates redundancy. Proposition E creates redundant rules around community involvement, already required pursuant to the US DOJ Recommendations.
VOTE NO ON PROPOSITION E.
The Bar Association of San Francisco
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: The Bar Association of San Francisco.
3
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
The last thing we need is less police oversight.
Oversight has modernized SFPD and increased efficiency. SFPD has come a long way but massive disparities in use of force and a long history of discrimination still exists.
African Amercans, people with disabilities, and unhoused people bear the brunt of this.
This measure will make these disparities worse by weakening efforts to monitor police behavior to make sure they are not engaging in racial profiling or targeting specific communities. Not only that it will lead to lawsuits costing this city millions of precious dollars.
Vote No on E
Coalition on Homelessness, San Francisco
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Coalition on Homelessness.
4
Paid Argument AGAINST Proposition E
Vote NO on Proposition E, a measure that would trample civil rights, endanger marginalized communities, and allow police to spy on San Franciscans without accountability.
Prop E would roll back crucial oversight of police use of surveillance technology. It would let police deploy any new surveillance technology for a full year without accountability or transparency, without examining impacts on civil rights, and without evidence that the technology even works. The measure could hand police a year-long blank check to track your cellphone location data, determine policing strategy based on faulty and racist algorithms, or place new forms of video or audio surveillance in your community. Under this proposition, San Francisco’s residents and elected officials would have little ability to prevent—or even learn about—the use of new harmful technology for a full year.
Prop E would erode San Francisco’s landmark 2019 Surveillance Technology Ordinance, which gave residents a necessary voice. Currently, city agencies, including the police department, must seek approval from the democratically-elected Board of Supervisors before acquiring or deploying new surveillance technologies. Agencies must also release a report to the public describing exactly how they would be used. This promotes transparency and ensures people have a say in protecting the privacy and civil rights of our community. It does NOT stop police from using new technology. They just have to follow a reasonable democratic process to do so.
Prop E would disempower the public and remove critical oversight. It would give the police unilateral authority on when, where, and how to deploy new and invasive surveillance technologies for a full year.
Technology may help police do their job, but it should come with accountability and transparency. Don’t let police use our city as an experiment.
Vote NO on Prop E.
Electronic Frontier Foundation
The true source(s) of funds for the printing fee of this argument: Electronic Frontier Foundation.
Legal Text
Ordinance amending the Administrative Code to 1) require a standardized community engagement process before the Police Commission changes policies or procedures regarding Police Department operations; 2) require the Commission and Department to consider administrative burdens on staff before changing such policies or procedures, and to streamline reporting and recordkeeping procedures; 3) modify the Department’s use of force and vehicle pursuit policies, and establish a technology policy, to allow officers to use body-worn cameras and drones under certain circumstances; 4) limit new restrictions on the Department’s use of technology unless approved by the Board of Supervisors; 5) streamline the process for the Department to install community safety cameras; and 6) permit the Department to use Surveillance Technology for at least one year before the corresponding Surveillance Technology Policy may be disapproved by the Board of Supervisors.
NOTE: Unchanged Code text and uncodified text are in plain font.
Additions to Codes are in single-underline italics font.
Deletions to Codes are in strikethrough italics font.
Asterisks (* * * *) indicate the omission of unchanged Code
subsections or parts of tables.
Be it ordained by the People of the City and County of San Francisco:
Section 1. The Administrative Code is hereby amended by adding Chapter 96I, consisting of Sections 96I.1, 96I.2, 96I.3, and 96I.4, to read as follows:
CHAPTER 96I:
POLICE DEPARTMENT POLICIES AND PROCEDURES
SEC. 96I.1. COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT STANDARDS.
(a) Community Engagement Process. Before agendizing any proposal to establish, modify, or abolish policies or procedures related to Police Department operations, the Police Commission shall first publish a notice regarding the proposal on its website. The Department shall then have 90 days to hold community meetings to solicit public feedback on any existing policies or procedures that may be affected, with at least one community meeting at each district station. Each community meeting shall have a neutral facilitator selected jointly by the Chief of Police and the Commission President. The facilitator shall chair the meetings, encourage dialogue between community members and the Department and Commission, and post written summaries online before any Commission meeting where any proposed change will be considered. The purpose of this community engagement shall be to describe the existing policies and procedures, solicit feedback on their implementation and impacts, and identify possible changes, rather than to consider specific draft proposals or to advocate for particular positions or changes. The Commission may begin holding public meetings on proposed changes only after the Commission President and Chief of Police have consulted each other, at the close of the 90-day community engagement period, on whether the community meetings are complete. If either the Commission or the Department convene a working group to consider a change to a policy or procedure, they may do so only after the consultation described in the foregoing sentence, and any working group should include subject matter experts, community members with experience in the criminal justice system, merchants, business owners, victims of crimes, and current or former police officers.
(b) Waiver by the Chief of Police. This Section 96I.1 is intended to help the Commission and Department receive public feedback on whether proposed changes to policies and procedures governing Department operations will impact the Department’s ability to efficiently and effectively serve the community. The Chief of Police may waive the requirements of this section 96I.1 based on whether the proposed changes are unlikely to have a substantial impact on the Department’s ability to serve the community, the amount of public feedback already received on the subject matter, the need for immediate action, and such other factors as the Chief may deem appropriate.
(c) Other Notice Requirements. This Section 96I is not intended to impair any other notice requirements that may apply to the Commission, such as the 10-day notice required under Charter Section 4.104(a).
SEC. 96I.2. IMPROVING THE EFFICIENCY AND EFFECTIVENESS OF THE DEPARTMENT.
(a) Administrative Time. It is essential that the Commission and Department maximize the time that officers can spend performing their core law enforcement and crime prevention functions, as opposed to administrative tasks. When adopting or revising policies governing the conduct of officers, the Commission and Department shall endeavor to minimize imposing administrative tasks on officers so that officers can primarily focus their time and efforts on law enforcement and crime prevention. It shall be City policy that patrol officers shall spend no more than 20% of their on-duty time conducting administrative tasks, except for tasks required by law, such as the completion of arrest reports and the booking of arrestees and property, and except for training and education.
(b) Recordkeeping and Reporting. To minimize redundancy and administrative tasks with respect to recordkeeping and reporting, the Commission and Department shall revise their existing policies and procedures to reduce all recordkeeping and reporting requirements to the extent allowed by law, and shall apply this rule to all future policies and procedures. Further, officers shall be authorized to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements through the use of technologies such as body-worn cameras. This subsection (b) is intended to ensure accurate reporting and recordkeeping, promote trust in the Department, and maximize the ability of officers to focus their time and efforts on law enforcement and crime prevention as opposed to administrative tasks that remove officers from the field.
(c) Use of Force Policy. The Department's highest priority is to safeguard the life, dignity, and liberty of all persons. Consistent with this priority, in encounters with criminal suspects or others, it shall be Department policy when feasible for officers to use rapport-building communication, crisis intervention approaches, and de-escalation tactics before they resort to using force. Officers shall be required to provide a written report for uses of force only when (1) the use of force resulted in a physical injury, including where the officer believes the use of force is likely to have caused a physical injury or where a person has complained of a physical injury; or (2) an officer removed a firearm from a holster and pointed the firearm at a person or used it to compel a person to comply. In all other instances involving a reportable use of force, the officers shall satisfy these reporting requirements using body-worn cameras, to the maximum extent possible, consistent with subsection (b). The use of force policy shall also minimize duplicative reporting by multiple officers regarding the same incident.
(d) Vehicle Pursuit Policy. An officer may engage in a vehicle pursuit if the officer has reasonable suspicion or probable cause that a felony or violent misdemeanor crime has occurred, is occurring, or is about to occur. In evaluating whether to engage in a vehicle pursuit, the officer must weigh the seriousness of the crime and the likelihood that the pursuit will prevent the crime or lead to the apprehension of a suspect against the potential dangers to the community and officers; and to minimize the dangers from vehicle pursuits, officers shall be authorized to use unassisted aerial vehicles (“UAVs,” also known as “drones”) along with or in lieu of vehicle pursuits, consistent with all applicable City policies on data and privacy and subsection (e). The Department shall annually report to the Commission on the total number of vehicle pursuits; the reason(s) for the pursuits; the number of pursuits that resulted in a collision; the number of pursuits that resulted in death or injury to an officer or member of the public; and the number of pursuits that were found to be within or outside of policy.
(e) Technology Policy. The Department shall use technology to the maximum extent possible to improve its efficiency and effectiveness in combatting crime, and to reduce dangers to the public, subject to the City’s policies to protect privacy and civil liberties. Consistent with these principles:
(1) officers shall be authorized to use technologies such as body-worn cameras to comply with recordkeeping and reporting requirements as set forth in subsections (b) and (c);
(2) the Department shall have the authority to use UAVs along with or in lieu of vehicle pursuits as set forth in subsection (d), and to assist with active criminal investigations; and
(3) the City may not adopt or impose any new restrictions on the use of technology by the Department, unless such restrictions are approved by the Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section 96I.4;
provided, however, that the Department must use technology for legitimate law enforcement purposes only, rather than for the purpose of infringing on the lawful exercise of rights protected by the First Amendment; must not retain any public footage for longer than 30 days unless a sworn member holding the rank of Captain or higher has determined that a longer retention period is necessary due to an open criminal investigation; and must not allow any Department staff to access any public footage unless a sworn member holding the rank of Captain or higher has determined that access is necessary for an open criminal investigation; and provided further, that the Department’s use of UAVs under this subsection (e) shall not be subject to the requirements of Chapter 19B of the Administrative Code.
SEC. 96I.3. IMPLEMENTATION.
(a) The Commission and Department may adopt policies and procedures consistent with this Chapter 96I to implement this Chapter.
(b) This Chapter 96I shall override any conflicting provisions in ordinances, regardless of the effective date of any such ordinances. This Chapter 96I shall also override any conflicting provisions in Department General Orders, regardless of the effective date of any such orders, including without limitation Department General Orders 3.01 (Written Communication System), 5.01 (Use of Force), 5.03 (Investigative Detentions), 5.05 (Response and Pursuit Driving), and 5.06 (Citation Release); provided, however, that (1) conflicting provisions of Department General Orders shall remain operative until the Commission has revised them to comply with this Chapter, or until October 1, 2024, whichever is sooner, and (2) the community engagement process in Section 96I.1 will not be required with respect to these implementing revisions to existing Department General Orders.
(c) The Department shall provide appropriate training to officers on any revisions to the policies and procedures within six months after the revisions are adopted.
SEC. 96I.4. AMENDMENT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
Prior to January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors may by ordinance amend this Chapter 96I by supermajority of at least eight votes. Effective January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors may by ordinance amend this Chapter 96I by majority vote.
Section 2. Chapter 19 of the Administrative Code is hereby amended by revising the title of the Chapter, revising Sections 19.1 through 19.6, adding Sections 19.7 and 19.8, and by revising and renumbering existing Section 19.7 as Section 19.9, to read as follows:
CHAPTER 19:
PUBLICCOMMUNITY SAFETY CAMERA ORDINANCE
SEC. 19.1. SHORT TITLE.
This ordinance shall be known and may be cited as the PublicCommunity Safety Camera Ordinance.
SEC. 19.2. DEFINITIONS.
(a) PublicCommunity Safety Camera. For the purposes of this Chapter, the term "publiccommunity safety camera" means any digital recording surveillance system installed at fixed locations in an open and obvious manner by the City and County of San Francisco to film public streets, sidewalks, or common areas of public housing complexes for the purpose of enhancing public safety. It does not include surveillance cameras designed to record the regular and ongoing operations of City departments, including but not limited to mobile in-car video systems, jail observation and monitoring systems, traffic reporting cameras, and building security taping systems. In addition, it does not include surveillance cameras installed for security purposes at the San Francisco International Airport, the San Francisco Unified School District or in San Francisco Municipal Railway facilities or vehicles.
SEC. 19.3. LIMITATIONS ON PUBLICCOMMUNITY SAFETY CAMERAS.
The City and County of San Francisco may install publiccommunity safety cameras for the purpose of enhancing public security only in locations experiencing substantial crime and where the potential to deter criminal activity outweighs any concerns asserted by the affected community as determined by the Police Commissiononly in locations where the Chief of Police has determined, following a public meeting held in accordance with subsection 19.4(b) of this Chapter, that installation would enhance public safety. The cameras shall record areas perceptible to the human eye from public streets and sidewalks only. Images obtained by the publiccommunity safety cameras may be released only to the following:
(a) Sworn members of the San Francisco Police Department holding the rank of Sergeant Inspector or higher. Police shall limit review of images to investigation of specific crimes, active operations, and crimes in progress. A sworn member holding the rank of Captain or higher may approve live monitoring of these images/camera feeds; and
* * * *
SEC. 19.4. APPROVAL AND AUDITING OF ADDITIONAL PUBLICCOMMUNITY SAFETY CAMERAS.
(a) Recommendation for Camera Installation by Director. The Chief of Police may install a public safety camera in an area if the Chief of Police finds, after holding a community meeting as set forth below, that installing the camera is likely to improve public safety in that area. The Chief of Police may call a meeting to discuss installation of a public safety camera on the Chief’s own initiative, or in response to a request from a member of the public (including but not limited to community and business organizations).If the Director of the Mayor's Office of Criminal Justice ("MOCJ") finds that a particular location is experiencing substantial crime and that the potential to deter criminal activity outweighs any concerns asserted by the affected community, the Director may recommend approval of a new community safety camera in that location to the Police Commission. The Police Commission shall calendar consideration of the matter no sooner than 30 days and no later than 60 days from MOCJ's notification.
(b) Public MeetingHearing Required.A community meeting shall be held in the neighborhood(s) being considered for a public safety camera, prior to installation. The Chief of Police may require the attendance of the affected neighborhood’s District Captain and/or a sworn member of the Police Department holding the rank of Captain or higher.The Police Commission shall conduct a public hearing to determine whether or not to install the camera. The MOCJ shall create and distribute to the Police Commission and the public a report justifying the camera at the particular location 20 days prior to the first public hearing on the proposed installation. The report shall include, for each proposed new camera location: (1) the reason for installing the camera at the particular location, including crime statistics for the area and (2) the proposed area/range to be covered. The Police Commission may continue its consideration of the proposal for up to 30 days in order to receive more information from the Director of the MOCJ, the Police Department, or community organizations or to further consider the proposal. The decision of the Police Commission shall be rendered within 30 days from the date of the first hearing.
(c) Approval of Camera Installation by Chief of Police Commission.After the community meeting(s) described in subsection (b), the Chief of Police shall review a summary of community feedback, including feedback provided at the community meeting, before making a decision regarding the installation and/or placement of the public safety camera. The Chief’s decision shall be based on public safety considerations, including the nature and frequency of criminal activity in the area and information provided by members of the impacted community. The Department of Technology (“DT”) shall be responsible for installing and maintaining any approved cameras. A camera installation approved by the Chief of Police under this subsection (c) is not subject to the requirements of Chapter 19B of the Administrative Code. The Police Commission may approve the camera's installation after a hearing, provided that the Commission finds that the proposed location is experiencing substantial crime, the potential to deter criminal activity outweighs any concerns asserted by the affected community, and there exists significant support from the affected community for the camera.
(d) Annual Report to the Board of Supervisors and to the Police Commission. The Police Department shall prepare an annual report on all publiccommunity safety cameras that the City has installed under this Chapter 19located in the City and County of San Francisco. The report shall identify the camera locations, the crime statistics for the vicinity surrounding each camera both before and after the camera is installed, crime statistics from surrounding vicinities, the number of times the Police Department requested copies of the recorded images, the number of live monitoring operations, and the number of times the images were used to make an arrest bring criminal charges, the types of charges brought, and the results of the charges. The Department shall issue the first reports during the first quarter of each calendar year, starting in 2025 no later than one year following the date of the first camera installation approval by the Police Commission and not less often than once yearly thereafter. Based upon information provided in the annual report, the Police Commission may direct the removal of any individual camera(s).
SEC. 19.5. NOTICE REQUIREMENTS.
(a) Public Notice of Proposed Cameral Installation. At least 3020 days before a public meeting to consider a public safety camera at a new location, the Departmentthe Police Commission considers a recommendation to install a new community safety camera, the Department of Information and Telecommunications Services ("DTIS") shall post a minimum of four 4 signs, as set forth below, within a 100-foot radius of the location at which the camera is proposed. Signs shall remain posted through the date of approval or disapproval of the camera installation by the Police Commission.
(1) Number of Signs. The Director of the MOCJ may approve additional signs if deemed necessary to provide adequate notice to the public.
(2) Contents and Size of Signs. Each sign shall be at least thirty inches by thirty inches. The signs shall be entitled NOTICE OF INTENT TO INSTALLAPPROVE A PUBLICCOMMUNITY SAFETY CAMERA(S) AT THIS LOCATION. The lettering of the title shall be at least 1¼-inch capital letters. All other letters shall be at least ¾-inch uppercase and ½-inch lowercase. Each signand shall include the time, and date, and location of the public meeting regarding the camera installation, of the Police Commission's approval hearing, a Police Commission contact person, and contact information a telephone number where members of the public may obtain additional information and/or submit comments. Signs shall be posted in languages appropriate to the specific neighborhood, and as required by the Language Access Ordinance, Chapter 91 of the Administrative Codeas determined by the Director of the MOCJ.
(3) Production of Signs. The Director of the MOCJ shall develop a standardized sign that meets the requirements of this Section.
(b) Additional Notice Provisions. In addition to the signposting requirements in Section 19.5(a), the Director of the MOCJ may use mailed notices. If the Director uses mailed notices, the Director shall send notices to:
(1) The owner of each property within 300 feet of the proposed camera location as reflected on the latest Citywide Assessor roll.
(2) Neighborhood associations and organizations listed with the Planning Department as representing businesses, owners or occupants located within 300 feet of the proposed camera location, and
(3) To the extent practicable, the occupants of each property within 300 feet of the proposed camera location.
The mailed notice shall include, at a minimum, all of the information required in Section 19.5(a)(ii). Mailed notice shall be sent at least 20 days prior to the Police Commission's consideration of approval to install a community safety camera.
(b)(c) Notice for Approved Cameras. Upon approval by the Chief of Police Commission and installation of a new publiccommunity safety camera, the DepartmentDirector of the DTIS shall post a conspicuous sign within 25 feet of the location of the camera. The sign shall statinge that the area is under camera surveillance, unless the Chief of Police determines that the sign would reduce public safety or undermine the effectiveness of the camera in enhancing public safety. Additionally, the Police Department shall publish on the Department's website the location of all cameras installed throughout the City. The Department shall update the site within 30 days of each new camera installation.
SEC. 19.6. PROTOCOLS FOR OVERSIGHT AND ACCESS TO SURVEILLANCE INFORMATION.
(a) Access to the recorders for publiccommunity safety cameras shall be limited to personnel from the DTIS for purposes of installation, repair, maintenance and upgrades, and to Custodian of Records staff from the Department of Emergency Management ("DEM"). DEM staff shall be responsible for proper release of the records.
* * * *
(c) (1) Members of the Police Department may obtain copies of the recordings or access to live-feeds by presenting a written request to DEM. The request shall be submitted by a sworn member of the Department holding the rank of Sergeant or higheran Inspector of the SFPD, and approved by a Captain or higher-ranking officerthe Deputy Chief of Inspectors. In exigent circumstances only, DEM may release the recordings and/or live-feed access to the Sergeant or higher-ranking officer information to an Inspector prior to receipt of a written request, but in that circumstance the requesting officer Inspector must then provide DEM a written justification for the release, including specification of the exigent circumstances, approved by a sworn member holding the rank of Captain or higher, . Wwithin 7seven days from the release under exigent circumstances, the SFPD Inspector must submit, in writing, the supervisor's and captain's approval of the Inspector's initial request.
(d) (2) The Public Defender, other criminal defense attorney, or an investigator appointed by the Court to assist a pro se criminal defendant may submit a written request to obtain copies of the recordings to DEM. A copy of the request shall be delivered concurrently to the Office of the District Attorney. The request shall include the name and court number of the charged criminal case, the time and place of the recordings, and a declaration under penalty of perjury verifying that the request is made in connection with the investigation or defense of a charged criminal case and further declaring under penalty of perjury that the attorney or investigator will use any publiccommunity safety camera recordings released by DEM only in connection with the charged criminal case. Upon receipt of the written request, DEM shall preserve for 180 days any recordings requested and deliver a copy of the recordings to the Office of the District Attorney. The District Attorney may review the recordings with members of the Police Department at the rank of SergeantInspector or higher in determining whether to seek a Ccourt order preventing disclosure. DEM shall deliver to the requesting individual a copy of the recordings within five 5 court days of the disclosure to the District Attorney, unless the District Attorney applies for a Ccourt order to prevent disclosure of the recordings pursuant to existing law. If the District Attorney applies for a Ccourt order to prevent disclosure, DEM shall not produce the recordings to the requesting individual until the court issues a decision regarding production.
(e)(d) DEM may only release records to agencies or individuals other than those specified in section 19.3 pursuant to a court order. DEM must notify the Board of Supervisors within 7seven days of any release pursuant to a court order.
(f)(e) Under no circumstances may recordings from publiccommunity safety cameras be used for personal purposes.
(g)(f) DTIS shall ensure that the publiccommunity safety cameras retain data for a period of at least 30 days but not longer than 30 days, unless the Department advises that a longer retention period is required for an active investigation.
(h) DEM, through a written agreement, may delegate its authority and responsibility under this Chapter 19 to DT or another non-law enforcement department.
SEC 19.7 REMOVAL OF PUBLIC SAFETY CAMERA.
The Chief of Police, or the Board of Supervisors acting by ordinance to override this Chapter 19 pursuant to Section 19.8, may direct the removal of a public safety camera at a specific location.
SEC 19.8 AMENDMENT BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS.
Prior to January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors may by ordinance amend this Chapter 19 by supermajority of at least eight votes. Effective January 1, 2027, the Board of Supervisors may by ordinance amend this Chapter 19 by majority vote.
SEC. 19.79. SEVERABILITY.
If any part or provision of this Chapter 19, or the application of this Chapter to any person or circumstance, is held invalid, the remainder of this Chapter, including the application of such part or provisions to other persons or circumstances, shall not be affected by such holding and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable.
Section 3. Chapter 19B of the Administrative Code is hereby amended by revising Section 19B.2, to read as follows:
SEC. 19B.2. BOARD OF SUPERVISORS APPROVAL OF SURVEILLANCE TECHNOLOGY POLICY.
* * * *
(c) A Department is not required to obtain Board of Supervisors approval by ordinance of a Surveillance Technology Policy if the Department’s acquisition or use of the Surveillance Technology complies with a Surveillance Technology Policy previously approved by the Board by ordinance. Additionally, (1) the Police Department may acquire and/or use a Surveillance Technology so long as it submits a Surveillance Technology Policy to the Board of Supervisors for approval by ordinance within one year of the use or acquisition, and may continue to use that Surveillance Technology after the end of that year unless the Board adopts an ordinance that disapproves the Policy; and (2) this Chapter 19B shall not apply to the Police Department’s use of public safety cameras under Administrative Code Chapter 19, or unassisted aerial vehicles (“UAVs,” also known as “drones”) under Administrative Code Chapter 96I, so long as Chapters 19 and 96I expressly exempt public safety cameras and drones from this Chapter.
* * * *
Section 4. Scope of Ordinance. In enacting this ordinance, the People of the City and County of San Francisco intend to amend only those words, phrases, paragraphs, subsections, sections, articles, numbers, punctuation marks, charts, diagrams, or any other constituent parts of the Municipal Code that are explicitly shown in this ordinance as additions or deletions, in accordance with the “Note” that appears under the official title of the ordinance.
* * *