tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 8, 2019 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
>> commission meeting of the san francisco entertainment admission. i am ben bleiman, commission president. if you are a member of the public, there are speaker cards. you can hand them to the staff or come to the microphone for public comment. we ask you to turn off cell phones or put them on silence. thank you to sfgovtv and media services for sharing this meeting with the public. we start with a roll call. (roll call). >> president bleiman: the next item. any public comment for items not
listed on the agenda? seeing none, public comment is closed. the next item on the agenda is item two, approval of minutes from may 21, 2019. do we have a motion on the approval of those minutes? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> okay. commissioner perez we need to have public comment on the approval of minutes. comment is closed. (roll call). >> the minutes have been and proved. next item report from executive director. >> good evening, president blieman, hello, commissioners. i had a place holder on my
agenda item for the streamlining legislation the office of economic and work force development has been working diligently on for quite some time. you have heard about it at commission several times at this point. unfortunately it was not heard at land use yesterday. it will be heard on monday, the 17th. we are very hopeful i it will pass-through land use this time around. it seems as the person managing this project worked well alongside with the land use committee to address any of their concerns and advances the committee hearing. that is all that i have to report on this evening. i am hopeful to have an update for you all on the 18th, which is our next hearing, to address or give you an update on our new
hire. i can't give you anything public on that at this time. i'm sorry about that. >> thank you very much for the report. any public comment? seeing none public comment is closed. next is item 4. which is a report from deputy director azavedo. >> in the enforcement report this evening i have a couple of highlighted yellow squares to bring to your attention. i am happy to answer further questions. i want to let you know about the bar that has been on the enforcement team's radar due to complaints through 311. it is not permitted by us nor are they stoned for a place of
entertainment. they don't have an active health permit. they are operating out of compliance. we are keeping them on the radar. i have spoken with the manager. the owner is out of the country. i informed him of the zoning restrictions and that they are required to have a permit to operate. we did receive three complaints. i did want to bring that to your attention. on on page 5, oracle park there was another fireworks show on a monday evening. we got the complaints -- no, it was on tuesday. just letting you know that we did receive a handful of complaints. they were in compliance with the new ordinance that they created for themselves about fireworks ending times. i did forward it to our contact. there was one complainant who was not anonymous.
i forwarded the fireworks policy to them directly, and i did not hear back. next is page 9 of the report. they had their first weekend 2:00 a.m. event which they are allowed to do friday and saturday unlimited. our inspector was out in the field. he did stop by not because of the complaint but because he was in the field and wanted to check it out. they had been given a sound limit. he was stopping by. i did hear from the owner they had three residents from the heartland hotel and made comments about the sound. it should be noted that k un gfu laundry was operating. it was hard to tell the
loitering people who they were patrons of. it looks like a hotspot to hang out, and that he did say they were in compliance with security and they only had about 35 people in the show. i have been in contact with the owner. i do intend to go to one of the future mediation meetings toasted down and talk with the owners and the hotel residents. those are the only highlighted items i have. i am happy to answer any questions for you. >> hello. quick question. on page 6, there is the midnight sun. there was a term sea weighted
limit on page 13. >> when the sound inspectors take a sound reading to establish a limit. the a waiting is for volume and c is for base. it is the frequencies. a lot of permits that were created a long a long time agot have c limits. we hear the bass is too loud so we are reissuing. >> rx4109, do they have a doorman outside to keep people in control? >> yes, they did have a security guard out front, and they were doing their best to keep the
kung fu laundry away from the venue. the owners went to kung fu laundry and said can you please control what is going on in front of your bar? there was not much resolved from those conversations. >> kung fu laundry don't have a poe. >> no live entertainment. >> just gathering. okay. hotel san francisco. they haven't finished the building inspection is that why they didn't get the permit yet? >> correct. we are waiting to hear from health and fire. they have gotten a couple of one-time events. they were also operating without a permit, yes. >> thank you. >> hi. i am curious about revolution cafe and makeout room. is it the same complainant?
they are next to each other. >> they are always anonymous. >> that is too bad. >> it is too bad. we have been working in that area to try to solve the problem, makeout rooms did just get a new sound limit. we have been really checking up on when complaints come in, he checks both because they are so close. >> is it a higher sound limit? >> it was. they didn't have a c waited limit, too. >> is that neighbor, if you are watching make yourself not anonymous so we can help you. it is tricky when we can't figure out what they are hearing. >> the owner told the inspector the owner of revolution cafe there is an alley nearby and
they are loitering there but they are not patrons of the revolution cafe. they are pinned for loitering. maybe when he is out there he can see if that is the case, but we want them to close the doors and windows. >> do they have security that is actively trying to encourage people to leave their zone? >> they have recently during the inspections when the inspector has gone out they had a staff person at the door. that is something. >> i mean i guess we could double up encouragement. they might not be patrons of the venue they are in the vicinity and they should move those folks along, too. thank you. >> i don't have any questions. thank you very much. any public comment on the deputy
director's report? seeing none public comment is closed. next is item 5 police department comments and questions. i don't see any police officers here. this etim is closed as well. next agenda item is 6. hear everything and possible action regarding applications for permits under the jurisdiction of the entertainment commission. we will begin with the consent calendar to be acted on by a single vote unless there are comments. there will be no time for discussion. please introduce the item tonight. >> thank you. the applicant this evening is is applying to amount the existing to include outdoor entertainment. the applicant held an llp since may 2014 and no noise complaints are on record. they are host entertainment inside the premises. if granted amendment there will
be bands and djs on the patio. they mailed letters in english and spanish. they received no opposition from the public and received one letter of support from a neighboring business. they must comply with the outdoor sound regulation. with no added conditions they recommend revising one of the existing permit conditions on the current llp permit. you can see that on the back of the memo here. that is the explanation of tonight's consent agenda. i am happy to answer any questions. >> i move to approve the consent agenda. >> second. >> any public comment on this agenda item? seeing none, public comment is closed.
a vote. (roll call). >> congratulations the amendment is approved please follow up for the next steps. thank you for coming in. >> that was ai a quick one. item 7. i will go first. i want to make sure you saw the news where after telling them they would allow them to continue to operate toward the end of the year, the busiest time and makes up a substantial part of the revenues. the landlord reneged on the offer. we have been in touch with
supervisor heavsupervise haney'. we may hear more in the near future. we have spoken with his office on creative ways to try to stem the destruction to the nightlife we are seeing in the city right now, and from that office they seem open to exploring possibilities hopefully with no unintended consequences. it is important to point out the city is wrecking havoc on nightlife. we need to work very hard to make sure we are not losing cultural institutions and becoming the city that the "new york times" seems to think we are every time they public an article about us. that is what i want to say. >> any other comments or
questions? >> it is june. happy gay pride month. it is also philippine independence day month. looking forward to celebrating diversity tha here in san franco and the bay area. >> this is how i find out who watching the entertainment commission meetings. i want people to know i am in the process of changing jobs. i will be leaves on june 14th to start position every deduction policy at the aids foundation on july 1st. my harm reduction and public health agenda at the entertainment will continue. you can look forward to hearing more from me as we move forward. >> congratulations. >> any public comment on the commissioner's questions and comments. public comment is closed.
>> you have a quorum. also present is chief scott chief scott from the san francisco police department and paul henderson from the department of police accountability. >> please call the first item. >> line item one, presentation of certificate of asset appreciation, action. mr. adam walker in his assistance in the rest of a potential kidnapping suspect -- assistance in the arrest of a potential kidnapping suspect. >> okay. , members of the police commission, chief, i would like to thank you for taking this opportunity to recognize somebody in our community that did in extraordinary event and an extra ignored -- extraordinary situation. on april 12th of 2019, at 1224 -- at 12:24 a.m., police were
dispatched to a call of the person who attempted to kidnap a small child. once we got on scene, we did quickly determine that the suspect was detained by mr. walker here, and then backing it up, it was a mother, and she was walking her 2 -year-old child on castro and 17th street. she had another newborn baby on her chest when the suspect grabbed her child and walked away. this happened directly in front of mr. walker as he was walking with his own child and his wife. this person, the suspect quickly ran away, and without any hesitation, mr. walker gave chase, having to leave his wife and child behind. he chased the suspect for two
blocks and he caught him. he did not use any force in doing so. he held him until police arrived he showed a lot of under pressure -- he showed a lot of calmness under pressure. i would like to say that he acted very indicative of our community and what we are about as people of san francisco. i am really grateful that he is given this opportunity to receive an award from the commission. >> thank you. i want to personally say thank you. when i read about it, i was shocked and really thankful that there are people like you in our community. i shudder to think what could have happened if you weren't there behaving the way that you did. you are a real hero and a real credit to san francisco, so thank you. >> i would like to say, too, i saw the videos when this first
happened. and i said to myself, that is really important that the people in this town care enough about helping somebody with their child. i want to thank you as a native san franciscan, and someone who has raised his children in this great city. people like you make this a great place to live. thank you. >> if i could chime in, the fact that you were paying attention and that you came to the mother 's aid is so admirable. i really do thank you, and i think most of the citizens of sent -- of san francisco thank you for your bravery. >> on behalf of the men and women of the san francisco police department, i would like to give you this certificate of appreciation. it reads, and deep is -- deepest gratitude for performance and outstanding good bravery and service to others on great personal risk on april 12th, 2019. such an example of bravery is worthy of the highest esteem by the san francisco police
department. thank you so much. [applause] >> also that he brought his family with him. his wife is here. >> welcome. >> he just told me he will be completing his residency here, moving out to colorado where he will be a dentist. they are from the alaska area. thank you, again, for everything >> thank you so much. is there anything you would like to say? >> thank you for the recognition it means a lot. acting as i hope any father would, any bystander that is in that situation. if it was my own child, and i was not there, i would hope
somebody would do the same thing there are people i have gotten to know in san francisco, anyone knows in my shoes, they would do the same thing. >> i am said that you are leaving, but you are a real credit to your city and to your family and to all of us. >> thank you so much. [applause] >> please call the next line item. >> line item two, adoption of minutes -- sorry, next we have public comment. >> is there any public comment? yes. [laughter] >> hearing none, next line item. >> line item two, adoption of the minutes, action, for the meeting of may firth -- may 1st , eighth, and of 2019. >> do i have a motion?
>> yes. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> public comment. >> is there public comment on the adoption of the minutes from last meeting? i see no hands. can we vote? all in favor? >> aye. >> all opposed? hearing none, the motion passes unanimously. >> next item. >> line item three, reports to report to the commission, discussion. thirty-eight, chief's report, provide an overview of the senses of peering in san francisco. the chief's report will be limited to a to a brief description of significant incidents. they will be limited to calendar whether the chief wants to limit any of the issues described. this will include a brief overview of any unplanned events
or activities occurring in san francisco having an impact on public safety. the commission discussion on unplanned events and activities, the chief describes a be limited to determine whether to calendar for a future meeting. update on m.o.u. between sfpd and the district attorney's office, presentation of the third and fourth quarter 2018 in the first quarter 2019 findings and recommendations, and investigative summaries, and presentation of the first quarter 2019 early intervention system, the e.i.s. report. >> chief? >> thank you, vice president taylor. i will start my presentation with the weekly update crime trends update, and then i will cover the rest of the items. in terms of overall port one crime, we are down 13% violent crime. we're down 15%, homicide, we are at a zero% change from this time
last year, and we are 26% down in gun violence. property crime, we are 12% below where we were this time last year. that includes a 15% drop in auto break-ins from this time last year. we had also a 16% decrease in burglaries, and an overall 13% decline in larceny and theft. we are trending really good. we started off the year busy with homicides, we are up slightly from this time last year in gun -related homicides, we are at nine, as opposed to six last year. we definitely want to get a handle on that. gun violence is down 26% overall that is good news. as i stated here to date, we are at 17 compared to 17 last year. we had no homicides this following week. we did have two notable homicide
arrests this past week. we had an arrest in a 2016 case that occurred on the 400 block of sixth street. we made an arrest on that case, and we made an arrest on a 2019 case that happened on may 15th , 2019 in the 800 block of turk street. those cases have been filed by the district attorney's office. we are really happy with the results there. we had a couple of newsworthy incidents that happened over the past week, led by an aggravated assault with a vehicle. it happened in the tenderloin on may 29th at 1:56 p.m. the highlights of this case, the tenderloin officers in a marked patrol vehicle observed a driver of a red key out run a red light they requested a run on the license plate, and while they followed the vehicle to await results.
dispatch returned that the plate , that the vehicle was stolen, and the unit, additional units were requested as the vehicle approached midblock. it pulled from the north side of 80th street into traffic, blocking the flow -- traffic was blocking the kia's path. they activated their emergency red lights, attempted to stop the driver, and the driver continued forward, striking a victim, pinning the victim against scaffolding and street signs. the driver continued to drive, they collided with several vehicles, entering several -- injuring several more drivers. the end result was the officers were able to resolve this issue without any serious use of force , in the driver was taken into custody. a lot of this was captured on video. it got a lot of attention from the media, and i am really happy and proud of the job the officers did on this case
because this could have been a much worse in terms of the people that were injured and the outcome. it was really a good job by the tenderloin officers and i'm really proud of the work that was done in that case. there was also an aggravated assault unprovoked in the castro this one was not -- did not get a lot of media, but it is worthy of mentioning this particular case. the victim who was transgender and was standing at a bus stop when a suspect came up behind her, pushed and shoved her to the ground, and this was unprovoked. she hit her head, she was injured. the suspect was on a bicycle, and again, the disturbing part was this was a totally unprovoked attack. that suspect is still outstanding, so we are asking for the public's help if anybody
saw anything, that can help us solve who did this. we definitely are looking to solve this case. it was an unprovoked attack. we don't know what the motive was. until we get the suspect in custody, or we get any help from anybody who may have seen this. this happened on may 30th at 6:00 p.m. at castro and market. we also had a collision with major injuries at 17th and mission on june 1st at 1:50 p.m. the vehicle was travelling southbound on mission street, it accelerated at a high rate of speed into an intersection and collided with another vehicle on the motorcycle. it jumped the curb into a building. the officers arrived, and the driver of the vehicle was unconscious. the officers performed c.p.r., revived the driver, and the driver was transported to the
hospital in critical condition. that incident is still under investigation as to whether, what the cause of the driver losing control of the vehicle. we don't have a conclusion on that yet, but it did cause a significant amount of attention both in the media and there were injuries with the driver in that case. that is still under investigation, and our traffic company will determine what the cause of that, whether it is medical or some other issue that caused that collision. we kicked off our pride month this week with our pride patches in which the commission approved last month, and we have gotten a lot of good comments and good, positive feedback on our pride patches. we also now have a pride vehicle that we will display in that -- display in the pride parade. you may have seen that on the
news as well. it is really hats off to pride and some of the other organizations within the department that actually made this happen, and it is definitely for a worthy cause with all the donations from -- the donations from the pride patches will be going to larkin street, but we have gotten a lot of positive feedback from the pride patches. many members, including myself, are wearing the pride patches. that was a good note. the mayor lowered the pride flag to kickoff pride month yesterday , and we were there for that as well. we got a lot of good press on that, and positive feedback from the community. we are very happy to support pride month. the giants returned to town this weekend, june 7th. they will play the dodgers. we are deployed for that, and then they will play the padres two days following the dodgers series. we will have good deployment for that. we also have lawyers in the championship series, and we are
deploying, in the event that -- we are deploying in the event that clinched games happen in the next week or so, we are deploying for that and preparing for that. those are the major events for this week. i will pause there for any questions before i go to the next item. >> i would say feel free to provide scores when you're giving public comments tonight for the game. just kidding. [laughter]. >> okay. the next item is an update on the m.o.u., the o.i.s. and iu with the district attorney's office with the san francisco police department. hopefully the commission, members of the commission have had a chance to read it. we'd sent everybody a copy after the last meeting when this came up. basically, this is three years in the works. a lot of work what -- went into this. meeting and conferring had to occur with the department and with the police officers association, and the end result is, after three years, we have
an m.o.u. signed where the district attorney's office will be the investigative agency for the criminal investigation on any officer involved shooting in custody to have use of force resulting in serious bodily injury. internally, we had to make some adjustments in order to make this happen, and the bulletin that will be presented to the commission tonight is part of those changes that we needed to make internally to make this happen, but overall, it was a very long process, and we believe we have a fair agreement that will help the independence of the criminal portion of the office involved shooting investigation. if there's any questions from the commission, i would be happy to answer. >> commission, someone will be presenting on the changes. >> the bulletin, yes. that is later in the agenda.
item number 4. investigative services detail. >> so i actually got my copy from the d.a. your copy didn't come until two years ago. i did get a copy from the district attorney who was kind enough to do this. there's a lot of questions that i have, and especially -- i understand the situation, this is not a perfect situation. the obama report -- the obama 21 st century report talked about having an independent investigation, so i understand the district attorney set this up to have some type of because i independence, because, you know, the district attorney works too closely with the department. i understand this is not the best set up, but it is a start. i guess i had some questions on
... i am having a hard time reading that note there. my understanding, when it comes to the duties, at the scene, the way i read is is the district attorney investigator will take the lead. is that your understanding as well? >> that is correct. >> when i talk about, at the scene, when it talks about the san francisco district attorney responsibilities starts with checking the crime scene, read all the interviews, i guess i was concerned because i don't know if the fire department does this. many times it is just a walk-through with the police officer if he is able to do that as to what happened.
is the d.a. going to be there all the way through it, or only when it starts with interviews? >> the d.a. is there all the way through. with that the notification system we have in place, everybody is notified when the incident occurs, and the d.a.'s personnel show up, our personal shows up, and the first thing that happens is there was a briefing to get everybody up to speed on what we have. from there, from that point forward, the d.a.'s office is the lead on the criminal investigation, so basically the interviews, anything that is done from that point forward, they lead. >> it says one s.f. bd notifies the on-call d.a. investigator, it doesn't say when. i mean, i assume it is immediately. >> it is immediately. >> it would be nice if it said that. it also says the d.a. will record their observations. i was wondering how that would occur. will the district attorney have a body worn camera?
>> not that i know of, but that is their internal process in terms of how they record observations, but to go back to the notification, that was part of the d.o.j. recommendations, and we have been -- for over two years now. the notification process has been rectified where everybody gets notified at the onset, so we all get called at the same time, and there is a call that happens, and then everybody responds, and it goes from there i don't know how the district attorney is going to test his staff with recording their observations, but it is not through our body worn camera. >> so that is just as they are going to record. okay. on the next page, we're talking about the statements of the officers, including public safety statements. will the district attorney be present for the initial public safety stand -- statements? >> typically no, because those statements are done right away,
so the purpose of the public safety statement is to make sure there's not any collateral victims or, you know, we know which direction the shots are fired, and how many shots are fired. typically that happens right after the incident and before the district attorney gets there , so they will not, in a typical situation be part of that process. if the department -- it is the department's responsibility to take the statement. >> when they do the initial public safety statement, is that a recorded statement? how is that done? >> it can be recorded, but typically, when the sergeants, or whoever does the public safety statement, it can be recorded on body camera. >> what talked about the department of police accountability, there is a throwaway paragraph that they have a duty to investigate. i am just wondering why -- i am i'm wondering how they fit into this.
>> where are you, commissioner. >> department of police accountability. it is a paragraph singh we acknowledge they have the right to investigate -- it is a paragraph saying we have -- we acknowledge that they have the right to investigate. i don't know how they would fit into this when they are on the scene, like if it is something we can ask the department of accountability how it works. i am assuming you have to cooperate with them as part of your department. >> yes, one of the things we wanted to get in here is the acknowledgement that the department of police accountability is responsible for doing their own investigations. director henderson has worked out his own m.o.u. with the d.a. 's office as well, but we just want to the language in there so there's the acknowledgement that they also have a duty, and this has to be coordinated, that's why it's in there.
it does not spell out how -- what their duties are, but we wanted to make sure this language acknowledges they are conducting an investigation in the m.o.u. >> you guys have your own notification period, right? >> that is exactly correct. because it is independent, we have a whole separate thing, but we wanted to make sure that there is a placeholder so there is an understanding amongst all the parties so that when we show up and they show up concurrently doing the same thing with the police department, all parties no who is supposed to be in the room. >> can you provide the m.o.u. at the next commission meeting? >> sure. >> i appreciate it. >> it was one of the requests from the commission for me when i first took the position, so it was one of the very thirst -- first thing is that i did. i wanted to flush this out specifically for this purpose,
both for us to have independent access to information so it wasn't a process of, regardless of who was taking lead, they weren't just getting summation of information that we were getting concurrent information independently. i will certainly send that along >> okay. i'm sorry, there's no page numbers on here, so it is under interviews with sfpd officers. i was looking at g. -- not g., f., the officers have the right -- right to consult with representatives and have representatives present for a criminal investigation interviews. representatives are usually lawyers or union officials and supporters are usually spouses, coworkers, friends, or clergy persons. i found that one of the best practices, they do talk about giving support to officers who
are involved in shootings, including friends and coworkers, but they also say that the best practice, the agency shall direct the officers not to direct any aspect -- discuss any aspect of the shooting with fellow officers, the. council, coworkers, friends, and the family. it doesn't say anything about that. i am just confused -- not confused, but wondering if that is the best practice and why we didn't have it in there. that was one of the questions. >> officers, in this situation, they are monitored by supervisors for that purpose, commissioner. this m.o.u. is in agreement between the district attorney's office and the police department in terms of protocols for these situations. but as a matter of practice, that does oh, her when an officer involved shooting happens, or an incident that would fit this criteria. the officers are monitored by supervisors to make sure they
are not having conversations about the incident. it is not in the m.o.u., but that is the standard protocol. >> okay. , because that is something -- and then, the only thing was the time limit. i was looking on the internet at other departments, and they pretty much pledged to have their investigations done anywhere from 90 days, to three months, 24 months, and some of them say, they could go up to a year that is just unreasonable. here you have six months to do a report, and if you want an extension, you can do longer than six months. i think for transparency -- transparency, for the public, those are long periods to put in , and what we were trying to do is shorten it. i think today we have an officer on the discharge review board from three years ago, which is just a way too long for an investigation, whether it be
policy, vernon street of investigation. the district attorney investigation goes very long, and we don't have any control over that. i am just wondering why it shows six months, i understand sometimes they are complicated, but sometimes they are not that complicated. >> when it was all said and done , it was felt by everybody that that six months was reasonable and realistic. our track record has been much longer than that, and we know that that has to be shortened. we, the police department, don't have much control over, you know , what the district attorney 's investigators do with the investigation. that is really their timeline in terms of the investigation subject to this m.o.u., but that was discussed and negotiated, and it was felt by all parties that that was a fair timeline, at least for these types of
investigations. these are complex investigations , for the most part. >> i think we short shorten that it says shall endeavour within six months, it doesn't even say it should be done in six months. when it goes to public trust, people are waiting to see if there is a resolution. that is a long time. the last thing i have, i noticed you talk about, i guess the last page, where it talked about the balancing of what the district attorney's duties are in terms of looking at the evidence, and the corpus collect i, was there a criminal act or a crime here. i am concerned that there is law that is pending in front of the state legislature that would change, potentially could change how this is looked at, and it says this will be in full force. i'm just wondering, can you go
in and amend it in terms of the law? >> yes, it can be amended, you can be cancelled by any party. in terms of the m.o.u., but of course, as the law changes, we have to change based on law. that can be done as well. >> of course, you will get to this in a moment, but i want to put it out there that whoever will bring the next presentation , what i'm looking at the department bulletin where these other dg owes will be affected, i couldn't find a d.g.o. -- i couldn't find the d.g.o. anywhere on our website. it wasn't attached, so in some of these, i am guessing -- i guess we will have a presentation how they will be affected, but it would be good for us to have a copy of it so we can see how it will be affected. >> let's wait until we get to that bulletin. they will give notice when they come up here. >> are you finished? >> i think i am. thank you. >> thank you. a lot of the questions i had,
you covered. my question is, chief, on page 1 , when it says the department will notify from s.f. p.d. personnel, who is that person? is that a d.a. investigator, is that an attorney, who is it? it doesn't identify who they are >> it is the person in charge of iib who is on that notification callout list, if you will, so that is an attorney, actually. >> so the i.i.b. department will be responding? >> they will respond. whoever is in charge of them, which is an attorney, it is a district attorney. the notification goes out to that person, it goes out to others as well, but that person is certainly notified. >> is that the same department -- wasn't there funding reduced more then a year ago? was in their budget slashed than
-- in half? >> i'm not sure what there funding is. they are still a functional unit i'm not sure how they are funded moving forward, but they are still a functional unit. they do still have that responsibility. >> okay. these incidents, are they going to take priority with respect to how they are investigated or handled, i am assuming by the department, and by the district attorney's office. is that right? >> in terms of the officer involved shootings, or incidents that fall under this m.o.u.? >> yes, altar call -- all three categories. >> my understanding is this is one of their primary duties, these cases. >> they are high-priority, and there are people already assigned to this task, or we know these are important incidents that need to be investigated properly. why is there a six-month delay? is that just the marker and we are hopefully shooting for
something sooner than six months >> we would, ideally, we would want these cases investigated as quickly as we can do it, and do it thoroughly. some of these cases can be done in six months, and quite frankly , there are some that are more complicated. these cases take time, they are complex cases, they use -- usually his these cases take six months. six months, i believe this is a fair amount of time, it is not an extended amount of time, but it is a fair amount of time for a case like an officer involved shooting. many times, there is evidence that has to be sent out to labs, and that takes time. we just wanted to have a reasonable and realistic amount of time, and that is why six months was agreed upon.
this is the district attorney that will lead on these investigations, so this portion of the investigation is up to the district attorney's office and whether they will meet that six months or not. >> my question is, with respect to the interviews of the sfpd officers, in that section, the steps in terms of how and when officers are to be interviewed are spelled out pretty thoroughly, and one of the first thing this is they are sequestered so there is no communication between them and other officers or other individuals that would have or give a statement on the incident that is right, correct? >> that is correct. >> the purpose of that is to maintain the integrity of the statement or what is the officer , or person observed. >> correct. >> they do have the right to speak with representatives in terms of other officers. you are correct. >> when these interviews are being conducted, is that the
d.a.'s office and the police department and d.p.a. that will be present while these interviews are happening, or who is in the room? >> the d.a.'s office, we believe , the police department, some of these cases have a lateral crimes. a robbery occurs, and that results in an officer involved shooting, there is a robbery that has to be investigated, and so san francisco police department will still be responsible for that portion of the investigation, so there is an assisted t4 those investigators to interview witnesses and so -- so there is an sss -- a necessity for those investigators to interview witnesses. and witnesses and d.p.a. have their role. it has to be coordinated carefully and thoughtfully, and that is why that lead agency
really will be part of that discussion about who should be in the room and who shouldn't in terms of an interview, but every case is different, and it depends on the crime. if there is another crime involved, there is a different set of issues that we need to contend with. these cases can be very complex and complicated in terms of what it might lead to in terms of interviewing different witnesses for different reasons. the coordination is what is important. this m.o.u., they have the district attorney as the lead on these investigations, they are calling the shots on some of this. >> those are all the questions i have for now. >> thank you very much, chief. the m.o.u., essentially just changes who is taking the lead. i was on the officer involved shooting team, and there is no change about the process, the crime scene, other then the fact
that the d.a.'s office will take the lead. having responded to several of these, it is organized chaos, but it is organized. when i was assistant d.a., you are notified, as was the d.a. investigator the same time the command staff was notified, and you are immediately taken to the scene. at the time it was the occ, not the d.p.a. it is a crime scene. they coordinate who has access to it, who has availability to the officers, and every time i have been involved, the officers are taken to the station and sequestered. there is not a lot of change and that in that in that regard. i think the commissioners, you know, it would be a great experience. hopefully we don't have another one, but if there is one for the commissioners to actually see how it works, and i mean, mr. henderson is shaking his head. we keep it very clean and nobody is allowed near the crime scene, no one is allowed near the officers. it is really well done.
the difference is the d.a. takes the lead. the reality at the time, it does take time. we had some of these cases with the das -- with the d.a.'s office before they would close their case, and the d.a. was the chief at the time, and he said that was unacceptable. he complained, and now they have gotten much better. it is still not as good. we had an officer involved shooting involving an officer at the airport, and san mateo county closed at the airport in six weeks. we were impressed by that. it was a complex case. i know there is a dedicated unit to do this, but they are complex , and even more complex by video, video on the street, video of the officers. it doesn't take a lot of time. my perspective is you want to do it right, six months seems very reasonable to me, these cases are complex. a lot of witnesses, a lot of people being witnessed -- being watched. i'm glad we have this m.o.u. we met with people, some of the
best protocol would be the attorney general's office, not the d.a.'s office because there are still relationships, but this is the next best thing, and there are professionals in the d.a.'s office are used to doing this. i think the chief for doing it. >> to add to that, part of the problem with these investigations, and i have done a lot of investigations as a prosecutor, not only are you collecting forensic evidence, but you have to wait for the results, which is not a quick process, so you have forensic evidence, you have crime scene reconstruction, these things aren't your typical, very small case that doesn't require time and will work especially in these cases. we want to make sure they are done absolutely right and correctly. that means not short circuiting, not cutting corners, not being lazy. >> thank you for that.
i have not done the investigation, however, i have done numerous m.o.u. seeing a memorandum of understanding holds individuals accountable, that is what the document says. the question that i had was just towards the end of the document. it says the duration of this m.o.u. is for two years. >> that is correct. >> how long have we been working on this m.o.u.? >> since 2016. >> when was the last time we had an m.o.u. put in place? >> i think it was 2009 or 2010. it was nearly ten years ago. >> okay. i think it is really imperative we have a document that is put in place to hold people accountable. >> sure. >> thank you. just two follow-up things really quickly. i definite he have a kern just a concern that i.i.b. is in charge of investigating officers who violate the law. i think it put