Why is the SF Police Oversight Department (DPA) Hiding Their De-Policing Campaign
Second of a three-part series on City employees concealing public information
Multiple credible sources have informed me that the Department of Police Accountability (DPA) —the department that provides oversight on SFPD’s integrity—has been deeply involved in advocating for a new policy that would prevent SFPD officers from engaging in foot pursuits of fleeing suspects. In other words, if a suspect steals a victim’s purse, DPA is campaigning to disallow SFPD officers from running after the bad guy.
Except in extreme situations, SFPD officers are not allowed to pursue suspects fleeing in a car. But the rationale behind that policy is that there is a negative tradeoff to putting innocent citizens at risk by pursuing crazy-driving suspects, which may be captured at a later time under safer conditions. How an SFPD officer running down the street puts the public’s safety at risk is beyond comprehension.
· Does DPA plan on imposing a speed limit on SFPD officers brisk walking?
· Will the oversight agency GPS officers to monitor their gait?
· Will DPA find SFPD officers in violation of policy for walking too fast in an attempt to arrest a car break-in thief?
We found the officer at fault because his walking speed exceeded 5 miles per hour before he arrested the suspect.
My public records request to DPA
To ascertain the validity of my sources’ claims, I issued a public records request to DPA asking for policy drafts, emails, and their communications with the San Francisco Bar Association pursuant to DPA’s involvement in disallowing foot pursuits. Within 4 business days of receiving my request, DPA said none of the above communications existed.
Four days is an incredibly short time to conduct a complete computer word search of each DPA investigator’s emails to verify if a single DPA employee discussed the proposed foot chase policy-but I’ve been through these suspicious quick-response turnarounds before.
In March 2021, I issued a public records request to DA Boudin and SFPD Chief Scott asking for their exchanged texts. Like DPA, within only five days, Boudin responded that he had not texted Chief Scott. As my article disclosed, a month later Chief Scott provided volumes of textual exchanges with Boudin. Chief Scott’s response proved both:
1) it takes more than five days to conduct a computer word/subject search on a department’s aggregate work emails, and
2) obviously, Boudin lied (He did in a second request too.) in his response to my public records response.
This creates the appearance that, like Boudin, DPA believes their political agenda exceeds their responsibility to disclose the truth and protect the integrity of their department.
I asked my sources how the DPA could-essentially lie- in their response by denying they are influencing the prevention of SFPD foot pursuits. My sources claim DPA will lean on the technicality that I had insinuated they were advocating for a “blanket prevention” of foot pursuits. Whereas technically they are allowing for exceptions to allow SFPD to chase suspects in extraordinary situations, like the pursuit of Vladimir Putin or Republicans. And thus, they were not lying in their response because I was not specific enough, and also, they had their fingers crossed behind their backs.
We need oversight over DPA
It's ironic, DPA has a history of acting overly zealous and meticulously petty about investigating SFPD officers. I know one undercover officer (really, really well) that was following a drug seller through the Tenderloin, and subsequently was investigated by DPA when a business complained the famished officer had taken a bite of a Hershey’s candy bar (Hey, dark chocolate is a health food) in the doorway of their business. But that same oversight department acts priggish and evasive when they are questioned about their covert advocacy to create headwinds to SFPD making the public safer.
For a city department that was created to ensure the integrity of the San Francisco Police Department, DPA is acting hypocritically. Philosophically, do you really want the city’s oversight department to be advocating for policies that remove tools from SFPD that are not harmful to the public? Won’t disallowing officers from running invite even more criminals to commute to San Francisco? And by extension, doesn’t DPA’s conflicting view of SFPD’s standards versus their own flexible ethics, and their dedication to the de-policing cause, contribute to the hostile environment that has caused hundreds of SFPD to quit and created our public safety shortage?
Perhaps, we need an oversight department over DPA. Or maybe DPA can demonstrate some integrity and release those policy drafts, emails, and communications with the San Francisco Bar Association so City voters are apprised of their behind-the-scenes efforts to encourage de-policing. Why is the SF Bar Association even involved?
My previous articles on the GBTB website.
Why is the SF Police Oversight Department (DPA) Hiding Their De-Policing Campaign
Lou, have you suggested the officers now be equipped and trained on using a lasso! The City has become an embarrassment. Good luck recruiting officers. I feel sorry for those still living there. (I left after 71 years and 4 generations)
Hey Lou - Has Department of Police Accountability replaced Internal Affairs?
Where is the S.F. Police Commission? I thought this was within their area of oversight?
How many know it alls does it take to degrade the effectiveness and morale of a major police department?