SFPD is Unaware of Where Chronicle’s Mysterious SFPD Database Came From

Why are Susie Neilson & Justin Phillips hiding the source of their anti-SFPD stats?

On January 24, 2023, Chronicle writers, Susie Neilson and Justin Phillips published an article listing the 97 words they allege SFPD used more frequently to justify traffic stops and searches of people of color.  Included in the overused terms was the a-word.

Neither Neilson nor Phillips have reputation for objectivity.  Neilson has a history of extrapolating shocking trends from extremely small sample sets.  For instance, to create the appearance crime was shrinking under DA Chesa Boudin, Neilson wrote that only six shoplifting crimes occurred in the 49 square mile of San Francisco on a daily basis.  Phillips writes a weekly column dedicated strictly to airing perceived racial inequities. 

Their January 24^th article piqued my interest.  A couple years back I made a public records request to Emergency 9-1-1 to obtain the citizen calls they received describing approximately 3,000 robbery suspects as a basis of comparison to the descriptions of people SFPD arrested for robberies.  Emergency 9-1-1 claimed that they didn’t have the computer capability to conduct a word search on the 3,000 robberies.  Therefore, I was extremely surprised that Neilson/Phillips were able to obtain a word search on 97 words from 232,857 traffic stops.  Depending on where Neilson/Phillips obtained the incident narratives, the database might have included an astronomical number of words.

Neilson/Phillips conceal where they obtained their data

·      Most writers cite a specific source for their data.  However, Neilson/Phillips’ article vaguely sourced that their data came: “Source SFPD.” 

·      On January 31, 2023, I made a public records request to SFPD asking for the data that was released to Neilson/Phillips.  In response, SFPD provided me with the Excel spreadsheet that SFPD said “was sent to the SF Chronicle in September 2022” and covered the same period Neilson/Phillips wrote about.  Neilson/Phillips claimed, “In one field the data, labeled ‘basis for search narrative’ we found officers frequently employed the words ‘smell,’ ‘marijuana’ and other drug-related terms.”  Actually, in the spreadsheet SFPD provided to the Chronicle, the word “smell” never appears.  “Marijuana” appears in the “location” column only five times in the 232,857 traffic stops- that’s once in every 50,000 traffic stops.  Of even greater suspicion, no words appear in the “basis for search” column where Neilson/Phillips claim they saw the 97 racially oriented terms.

The Chronicle’s Neilson & Phillips see the word “smell” used frequently in column AC. Do you?

·      On February 5, 2023, I emailed Neilson asking whether she obtained her word search data from either an SFPD website or from a specific public records request to SFPD.  Neilson never responded to me.

·      On February 15, 2023, SFPD stated that “after speaking with several different people/units that could have possibly handled the data mentioned by the Chronicle, they were still unsuccessful finding out the source of the (Neilson/Phillips’) data.”

I am not asserting that Neilson/Phillips fabricated their data, but I am alleging they are: a) deliberately hiding where their data came, b) potentially concealing any de-policing advocacy groups’ assistance in obtaining this data, and c) cherry-picking statistics to obscure context that would demonstrate the insignificance of their analysis.

Neilson/Phillips’ statistics are nonsensical and lack context

·      In Neilson/Phillips’ article, SF police often use these marijuana-related words to justify fruitless searches of black people, they list the top 97 words that they believe are used disproportionately against Black drivers during traffic stops and detentions.  Surprisingly, license, registration, and insurance are missing from SFPD’s frequently used terms.

#13  from        #43  that         #59 to              #74  by

#20  of             #49  for           #64 was           #84  be

#29  in             #50  have        #65 call           #86  had

#31 with          #52  at             #69 given        #89  not

#35  on            #53  as             #73  we           #92  he

Make sure the kids are out of the room when you read these next two words:  #40 the & #54 and. 

In their article, Neilson/Phillips specifically highlighted SFPD’s 600% disproportionate use of the innocuous word him.

A screenshot from Neilson/Phillips’ article regarding the disproportionate use of the word “him”

Yet the word him was used less disproportionately than the a-word, which was used 900% more times against Blacks than whites.  I’m not kidding.  Not the word assh@le, but the word a.  You can’t make this stuff up.  Only Susie and Justin can spin the word a to connote racism. 

The refinement of Neilson/Phillips’ word search down to the word a means that they weren’t just conducting a small individually targeted word search like I requested from Emergency 9-1-1, but a massive aggregate search on every word used.  The size of this search creates the suspicion they had help from an advocacy group that had access to this government information which is apparently external to SFPD.

It is a mathematical certainty Neilson/Phillips are withholding context

Neilson/Phillips’ claim that all their words were used in one-direction against people of color, and that there were no offsetting and substitute words used on whites.  Isn’t meth used more frequently with white speeders?  Why is meth not present?  If SFPD wrote similar length narratives on both people of color and whites, then there is 100% certainty[1] that some words had to be substituted and used disproportionately against whites.  But like how Neilson/Phillips hid their database to eliminate context, they also deceitfully withheld the words that must have been used disproportionately against whites.

Neilson/Phillips unknowingly flatter the record-breaking success of SFPD’s searches

Neilson/Phillips’ article stated:

The Chronicle evaluated the terminology that San Francisco police used to explain the unfounded searches of approximately 8,000 people between July 2018 and September 2021, from a total of over 200,000 stops conducted during that time and about 39,000 searches. 

First, the word “unfounded searches” means “having no foundation or basis in fact.”  I guess what Neilson/Phillips are saying is that SFPD did not have the factual right to search the individuals they detained.  If this is true, shame on SFPD for violating citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights.  Max Carter-Oberstone, a defecting mayor-appointed police commissioner specializing in this constitutional issue, should immediately investigate SFPD’s deplorable actions.  But wait a sec.  Perhaps Neilson/Phillips confused the words “unfounded searches” with “unsuccessful searches,” which conveys a totally different meaning.

If SFPD made 39,000 searches, and only 8,000 did not produce contraband, then 31,000 of SFPD’s searches—or 79.4% of SFPD searches were successful.  While Neilson/Phillips’ calculated 79.4% success rate is flattering to SFPD, they contradict themselves with the article’s title “fruitless searches.”  How is a 79.4% success rate fruitless?  It is not a pure apples-to-apples comparison, but DUI checkpoints result in less than a 1% arrest rate.  I think Neilson/Phillips’  79.4% success rate is overstated and represents the writers’ weak statistical skills, their inability to step back to look at the forest, and to question their results.

Dear Chronicle Editors

Ironically, per Neilson/Phillips, SFPD did not have a comment on the data they apparently have never seen.  Yet, SF Public Defender Mano Raju emailed, “The language police use in these reports is revealing and lends further credence to what we already know.”  Wait, how did Raju also get to see these reports that SFPD never saw?

Chronicle editors, similar to how Chesa Boudin used Megan Cassidy as his Chronicle spokesperson, it is glaringly obvious that crusaders are using your columnists to propagandize their de-policing and defunding agendas.  To refute my allegations, and in the name of journalistic integrity, please:

a)      provide a link to the database Neilson/Phillips really used, and

b)     publish a copy of Neilson/Phillips’ or Chronicle’s public records request to the releasing agency. 

---

[1] Assume SFPD wrote 100 words on both Black and white traffic stops, with Black traffic stops using the word football 80 times and baseball 20 times. For Neilson/Phillips’ story to be true, football must have been used fewer than 80 times and baseball fewer than 20 times for whites. That means, at a minimum, two other words had to be used versus whites that were not used versus blacks. To the degree Neilson/Phillips are claiming words were used so disproportionately against Blacks, alternative words for whites would be much larger than the 2 used in this example. Mathematically, Neilson/Phillips withheld this context.