DA Boudin Negotiates SFPD’s Multiple Arrests of a Prolific Burglar to Wellness Class Diversion
Nathan Picco
Nathan Picco is a prolific and career commercial burglar. Since 2002, he has been convicted of felony burglary nine times and has served prison sentences.
January 2020, Boudin became San Francisco’s District Attorney.
Since Boudin became DA in January 2020, SFPD put together 7 separate burglary cases on Pico. Those burglary arrests were enhanced because they occurred during a state of emergency--the pandemic. A distinction like stealing from Walgreens during a riot versus taking advantage of Prop 47 on a normal day.[1]
An SFPD source told me that: If you look at every county within a 50-mile radius of San Francisco, Picco is good for a burglary in every one of those counties
Burglaries During the Pandemic
During the height of the pandemic, thieves transitioned from breaking into tourists’ cars and businesses to burglarizing from residences and closed businesses. In a December 16, 2020 San Francisco Examiner article, Boudin blamed SFPD saying that “his office can only take action on the fraction of burglary cases presented by police (SFPD). Ouch, fraction?
First, as Examiner author Michael Barba noted, SFPD’s clearance rate was in line with the national burglary clearance average. Thus, instead of evaluating whether his office was successful in achieving felony convictions on felony arrests, Boudin instead scapegoated SFPD for not bringing him enough arrests. Analogy, it’s not that Boudin struck out in every at bat, yet it was the pitchers’ fault for not throwing more pitches.
Second, once again Boudin’s “took action” was drawn from his FCAAP family of vague descriptions on how he dumps cases (filed, charged, took action, held accountable, prosecuted.) As, I have covered ad nauseam, FCAAP only means Boudin read or considered SFPD’s arrest. FCAAP has nothing to do with achieving a felony conviction commensurate with the egregiousness of a crime.
Another backroom negotiated disposition by Boudin
As I have also covered ad nauseam, Boudin has reverted to negotiating arrestee’s settlements with his former coworkers at the Public Defender’s Office. These negotiated settlements lack transparency and discussions are held outside of the public’s eyes and court transcripts.
Through a Boudin negotiated transaction, Picco will not serve any time for the 7 arrests SFPD made. He’s back on the streets as behind closed doors, Boudin approved Picco for a diversion program. It must be disheartening for officers to remove a prolific burglar from the streets only to have Boudin immediately let him loose.
As I stated in my recent article, when Boudin was interviewed by The Standard he danced around answering questions[2], and was unable to provide any statistics on the success of the felons he directs to diversion programs. Thus, Boudin can avoid felony convictions by directing felons to diversion programs with no accounting of their successes.
This is not an issue of dealing with the root cause of crime, as Boudin’s proxies tout in their advertising funded by wealthy out-of-towners.
Sources are telling me that Picco told SFPD inspectors he plans to burglarize again as soon as he is back on the streets. There is a 100% chance Picco will burglarize again, and the citizens and business owners will pay the price for Boudin’s social experiment. Does anyone still wonder why business are leaving SF?
[1] And for all the disbelievers of the negative effects caused by Prop 47- the Safe Neighborhood and Schools Act, a felony burglary charge was eliminated by Prop 47. California Penal Code 459.5 states: “No person who is charged with shoplifting may also be charged with burglary or theft of the same property. Added November 4, 2014, by initiative Proposition 47, Sec. 5.” This change means that SFPD cannot arrest a shoplifter. An employee or citizen must make a citizen’s arrest and ask SFPD to take custody.
[2] Three times in his interview, Editor Weber asked Boudin on the success of diversion programs, and three times Boudin avoided answering:
At 2:10: Do you have evidence your program (diversion) is working?
First let me thank you for inviting me……. Boudin meandered onto other subjects for 2 ½ minutes.
At 4:27 Do you have evidence your (diversion) approach is working?
We do, and I’ll get to that…….
At 4:50: Do you have data on how many people have fallen out of diversion?
Not off the top of my head. I do know that diversion programs have existed in San Francisco for over 40 years. (Again, Boudin wandered.)
Great article! And, we are sure Nathan is not the only prolific burglar loose on the streets.
Keep up the pressure Lou. Hopefully our day with Boudin being a ex SF resident is close.